thermal throttling More details about the throttling issues of the 15" core i9 MacBook Pro, this time with Final Cut Pro X

[AnonymousGuy]

Intel bins the higher sku mobile parts to be low leakage compared to desktop parts.  Someone at Apple decided "yolo" and to either not upgrade the cooling or not get aggressive enough with the fan/clock curves.  

 

@Trixanity Intel puts out TONS of design resources and models to help OEMs know exactly what they're getting.  The way you're trying to somehow blame Intel here tells me you have zero clue what actually happens in the back end before a product launches.  Intel isn't "daddy" they don't dictate how OEMs use their products, they just give guidance and leave it up to them.

[TacoSenpai]

Guess you can say Apple... dropped it like it was hot.

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I think you're projecting that ignorance.

 

Intel works with its partners and have a vested interest in a high profile client succeeding. That they didn't work with Apple or Apple on its own accord didn't work the frequency and fan curve is a testimony to shoddy QA.

 

You like to mention Nvidia but they invented Max-Q SKUs for a reason. The boost frequency may be higher on the i9 but the performance isn't because it can't sustain it. That's why you tune the CPU to work if you insist on working with a power hungry SKU in such a product. The 4.8 GHz is for single core bursts anyway. It'll only do it for seconds at a time.

 

The i9, as it is right now, needs an insane amount of cooling that few laptops have.

 

But this isn't just about the i9. The 28W processor in the 13" throttles as well. Since Apple is the sole customer one would imagine Intel knows its audience yet we see the same problem. And the design hasn't changed either. So there is a common denominator but it's convenient to ignore and focus on the obvious things right in front of your face instead of taking a step back and looking at the big picture.

Apple isn't the only one experiencing issues with Intel's processors either.

If a company designs a cpu with a use case in mind and you try and implement it outside of that use case and fail it is your fault not the company. No amount of tweaking is going to make putting this cpu into a thin and light make any sort of sense. It's called the i9 for a reason.... 

[TopHatProductions115]

The new ThrottleBook - err, I mean, MacBook 2018  

[sof006]

This over heating is not intels fault for sure. The chip runs hot, which is why intel doesn't supply their stock cooler and recommends a high end cooler. A crappy laptop cooler that's designed to keep dual core CPUs cool isn't going to work.

 

 

[Thaldor]

Fault is completely Apples. This is not their first rodeo to make a laptop with high-end CPU and it probably won't be their last. Even though I don't like what Apple is doing, one thing I can agree is that Apple is a company that doesn't jump on things right away but takes a time and thinks. This time there was someone didn't think and this is the outcome, or did they? After all in some aspects Apple very well knows how to sell overpriced stuff, like RAM upgrade that costs twice as much as the actually RAM sticks or GPU upgrade that costs twice as much as the GPU, they know that people are ready pay for "bigger numbers" and what kind of goldmine this is. "You sure, you only want 2.6GHz processor when you could pay only [300-400] dollars more for 2.9GHz monster processor that will smash everything (Processor upgrade can only work in specific situations, see the manual for more information)?"

[D13H4RD]

33 minutes ago, sof006 said:

This over heating is not intels fault for sure. The chip runs hot, which is why intel doesn't supply their stock cooler and recommends a high end cooler. A crappy laptop cooler that's designed to keep dual core CPUs cool isn't going to work.

 

 

Uh, this is a non-desktop processor...

[Trixanity]

59 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Intel bins the higher sku mobile parts to be low leakage compared to desktop parts.  Someone at Apple decided "yolo" and to either not upgrade the cooling or not get aggressive enough with the fan/clock curves.  

 

@Trixanity Intel puts out TONS of design resources and models to help OEMs know exactly what they're getting.  The way you're trying to somehow blame Intel here tells me you have zero clue what actually happens in the back end before a product launches.  Intel isn't "daddy" they don't dictate how OEMs use their products, they just give guidance and leave it up to them.

No dictation, no. But those resources go beyond just documentation. If Intel doesn't have a team to help clients implement their products, then I'll eat a cigarette. So sure, zero clue, friendo.

 

Still, the power on these new SKUs are out of control. If this is fine, then Vega 64, GTX 480 or FX 9590 is fine too. Which they certainly are not.

 

But you seem to have the impression I'm putting blame solely on Intel, so I'll give you an out here: the blame is probably 80%, maybe 90%, on Apple. It's a rushed product with zero forethought. That doesn't absolve Intel of making some shit products though. They just up the clock speed because their foundries have nothing new going on. You can't just do that and call it a day. 

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

If a company designs a cpu with a use case in mind and you try and implement it outside of that use case and fail it is your fault not the company. No amount of tweaking is going to make putting this cpu into a thin and light make any sort of sense. It's called the i9 for a reason.... 

Ah, so i9 means it's a high power product. That makes sense. Hold on, i7 used to hold that spot. Wait a minute, there was low power i7 SKUs? Who would have thought?

 

You could certainly tweak this CPU to fit in most laptops. It's just a question of how crippled you want it to be. Chopping off 500 MHz could probably drop power by 30% or more.

I'd also like to refer to Nvidia's Max Q series. The impossible scenario you speak of made possible. Designs that could only handle GP107 can now handle GP106. And it's not magic. It's frequency. Which I've been talking about for quite a few posts now.

 

Again. People are conveniently sidestepping the low power CFL models with the same poor power characteristics. Quite interesting.

By that logic power does not matter and we should perpetually design ever beefier cooling and power delivery when right now the inverse is happening and has done so for a while until CFL Mobile dropped.

 

Is no one curious how Intel could up core count and clock speeds and still advertise the same TDP? Is no one noticing how they're dropping base clock and increasing boosts year after year? Is no one noticing multiple models exhibiting throttling (and I'm not referring to Apple products)?

[GoldenLag]

So how long untill a back replacement with a better heatsink comes along

[Brooksie359]

51 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

No dictation, no. But those resources go beyond just documentation. If Intel doesn't have a team to help clients implement their products, then I'll eat a cigarette. So sure, zero clue, friendo.

 

Still, the power on these new SKUs are out of control. If this is fine, then Vega 64, GTX 480 or FX 9590 is fine too. Which they certainly are not.

 

But you seem to have the impression I'm putting blame solely on Intel, so I'll give you an out here: the blame is probably 80%, maybe 90%, on Apple. It's a rushed product with zero forethought. That doesn't absolve Intel of making some shit products though. They just up the clock speed because their foundries have nothing new going on. You can't just do that and call it a day. 

Ah, so i9 means it's a high power product. That makes sense. Hold on, i7 used to hold that spot. Wait a minute, there was low power i7 SKUs? Who would have thought?

 

You could certainly tweak this CPU to fit in most laptops. It's just a question of how crippled you want it to be. Chopping off 500 MHz could probably drop power by 30% or more.

I'd also like to refer to Nvidia's Max Q series. The impossible scenario you speak of made possible. Designs that could only handle GP107 can now handle GP106. And it's not magic. It's frequency. Which I've been talking about for quite a few posts now.

 

Again. People are conveniently sidestepping the low power CFL models with the same poor power characteristics. Quite interesting.

By that logic power does not matter and we should perpetually design ever beefier cooling and power delivery when right now the inverse is happening and has done so for a while until CFL Mobile dropped.

 

Is no one curious how Intel could up core count and clock speeds and still advertise the same TDP? Is no one noticing how they're dropping base clock and increasing boosts year after year? Is no one noticing multiple models exhibiting throttling (and I'm not referring to Apple products)?

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. 

[sof006]

1 hour ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Uh, this is a non-desktop processor...

I realize this but its still going to run hot, its Intels most powerful consumer grade CPU. Apple just doesn't know how to make a decent computer.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, sof006 said:

I realize this but its still going to run hot, its Intels most powerful consumer grade CPU. Apple just doesn't know how to make a decent computer.

Well, yeah, but you mentioned it doesn't come with a stock cooler. 

 

I'm pretty sure no laptop CPU comes with a cooler 

[Linus_torvalds]

Apple is shit. They ALWAYS do this kind of things. They make sure you can't use your devices whole potential. Be it lack of ports, termal throtling, devices longevity. They are known for creating devices that are ment to break down soon! remember macbooks with nvidia gpu dying? keyboard thing, breaking hinges on macbooks because of temperature changes, then this thermal throtlling and so on. Then there is their shitty os because of what you are locked down! Can't use devices potential. Iphone X is powerfull and still can't do anything that iphone 6s can't except wireless charging and face unlock

[Trixanity]

41 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

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. 

You're still conflating things for some reason which I just told you. Yet you do it again. There's no correlation between iX and the TDP. There is a partial correlation between iX and the suffix but mostly not.

 

And I'll still point out that the CFL U series has the exact same problem so your argument is irrelevant. It's simply a shit product with no regard for power efficiency despite it being a mobile product. It basically boils down to this:

 

• Intel is stuck on 14nm but need more performance.
• Intel adds two more cores
• Intel doesn't want to lose performance in less threaded scenarios
• Intel maintains the same or adds higher boost clocks
• They, however, lower base clocks so the TDP remains the same
• People still think it shares the same power characteristics
• We now have this silly argument
• Intel laughs in a tub full of gold

The i9 was a mistake but it is workable in a desktop replacement.

 

Drop the base clock 200-300 MHz, drop the boost 400-500 and you still have the extra cache (which means frequency is not the only difference and it calls into question whether you actually know the details of Intel's product lines). That'd probably work in any laptop in the MBP15 and XPS15 class. With no need for new cooling and it would drop into existing designs and it would still be faster than the i7. There. I fixed it. 

 

In fact, if Apple cared for their customers they would issue an update that knee caps the processor as I described and it'll work just fine. Well, that's not entirely true. They'd still need to fix their lousy fan curve but that's a problem for every product they have made so I'm probably more likely to win the lottery and I should note that I don't buy tickets.

[sof006]

1 hour ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Well, yeah, but you mentioned it doesn't come with a stock cooler. 

 

I'm pretty sure no laptop CPU comes with a cooler 

I know that, what I meant by that is that the i9 is a high end CPU and intel wouldn't supply a cooler with it because of how much heat it generates. Basically i'm comparing Apples cooling solution to Intel's stock cooling solution (bad).

[Speed Weed]

Apple is overrated and overprice. 

[Brooksie359]

17 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

You're still conflating things for some reason which I just told you. Yet you do it again. There's no correlation between iX and the TDP. There is a partial correlation between iX and the suffix but mostly not.

 

And I'll still point out that the CFL U series has the exact same problem so your argument is irrelevant. It's simply a shit product with no regard for power efficiency despite it being a mobile product. It basically boils down to this:

 

• Intel is stuck on 14nm but need more performance.
• Intel adds two more cores
• Intel doesn't want to lose performance in less threaded scenarios
• Intel maintains the same or adds higher boost clocks
• They, however, lower base clocks so the TDP remains the same
• People still think it shares the same power characteristics
• We now have this silly argument
• Intel laughs in a tub full of gold

The i9 was a mistake but it is workable in a desktop replacement.

 

Drop the base clock 200-300 MHz, drop the boost 400-500 and you still have the extra cache (which means frequency is not the only difference and it calls into question whether you actually know the details of Intel's product lines). That'd probably work in any laptop in the MBP15 and XPS15 class. With no need for new cooling and it would drop into existing designs and it would still be faster than the i7. There. I fixed it. 

 

In fact, if Apple cared for their customers they would issue an update that knee caps the processor as I described and it'll work just fine. Well, that's not entirely true. They'd still need to fix their lousy fan curve but that's a problem for every product they have made so I'm probably more likely to win the lottery and I should note that I don't buy tickets.

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. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Trixanity said:

TDP for Intel chips is pretty useless. It's for base clocks but I would assume they tell their partners what their various boost power states are like and if not that Apple's engineers can figure it out.

It's not useless, if the macbooks cooling was capable of dissipating 45watts it would maintain tj at 95^oC on almost full load on all 6 cores.  Given it doesn't do this apple haven't even managed a cooling solution that meets the minimum TDP.

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The old i7 (4770HQ) and the i9 (8950HK) have more or less the same TDP. 47W vs 45W.

 

That doesn't matter, maybe they managed a better solution on the older version or the TDP curve is different when you have 2 less cores. Either way, with the new model it looks like they ignored the TDP rating. 

[goodtofufriday]

This is honestly all i have to add. Anyone that says otherwise im not even sure what to say to you. 

[RotoCoreOne]

It takes courage to put a toaster in such a thin device

 

OR

 

It takes courage to go from "thin" to "thicc"

 

You decide!

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

You're still conflating things for some reason which I just told you. Yet you do it again. There's no correlation between iX and the TDP. There is a partial correlation between iX and the suffix but mostly not.

 

And I'll still point out that the CFL U series has the exact same problem so your argument is irrelevant. It's simply a shit product with no regard for power efficiency despite it being a mobile product. It basically boils down to this:

 

• Intel is stuck on 14nm but need more performance.
• Intel adds two more cores
• Intel doesn't want to lose performance in less threaded scenarios
• Intel maintains the same or adds higher boost clocks
• They, however, lower base clocks so the TDP remains the same
• People still think it shares the same power characteristics
• We now have this silly argument
• Intel laughs in a tub full of gold

The i9 was a mistake but it is workable in a desktop replacement.

 

Drop the base clock 200-300 MHz, drop the boost 400-500 and you still have the extra cache (which means frequency is not the only difference and it calls into question whether you actually know the details of Intel's product lines). That'd probably work in any laptop in the MBP15 and XPS15 class. With no need for new cooling and it would drop into existing designs and it would still be faster than the i7. There. I fixed it. 

 

In fact, if Apple cared for their customers they would issue an update that knee caps the processor as I described and it'll work just fine. Well, that's not entirely true. They'd still need to fix their lousy fan curve but that's a problem for every product they have made so I'm probably more likely to win the lottery and I should note that I don't buy tickets.

You seem real desperate to hate on Intel for this, for some current unknown reason.

 

So let's change the scenario a bit.

A car manufacturer produces this brand new supercar looks amazing and is capable of going 250km/h. However they decided to grow on some tires that were designed for sedans that are only rated to go 130 km/h anything above this and they would rip apart. So to prevent this the manufacturer imposed a system that when the car is reaching 130km/h they restrict the amount of power coming from the engine so the tires don't destroy themselves.

 

So who do you blame? The manufacturer for choosing absolutely dumb tires that can keep up with the engine? Or the tire manufacturer for creating tires that can not go over 130km/h despite never being designed to go on a supercar?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Arika S said:

You seem real desperate to hate on Intel for this, for some current unknown reason.

 

So let's change the scenario a bit.

A car manufacturer produces this brand new supercar looks amazing and is capable of going 250km/h. However they decided to grow on some tires that were designed for sedans that are only rated to go 130 km/h anything above this and they would rip apart. So to prevent this the manufacturer imposed a system that when the car is reaching 130km/h they restrict the amount of power coming from the engine so the tires don't destroy themselves.

 

So who do you blame? The manufacturer for choosing absolutely dumb tires that can keep up with the engine? Or the tire manufacturer for creating tires that can not go over 130km/h despite never being designed to go on a supercar?

I'm not too sure the analogy will work for some people, but it 's pretty easy to understand what you are saying. 

 

Dear apple: RTFM.

[Nowak]

Can't wait until Apple damage controls this by claiming that only a "small percentage" of Core i9 MBPs thermal throttle when literally every Core i9 MBP thermal throttles and then proceed to do nothing about it, like they have with a number of other issues that Mac owners have run into.

[DrMacintosh]

btw here is a more in depth video

 Its actually not that bad, and the MacBook can actually perform a little better, the fan curve just doesn't let it.  

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

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 U series i5 and i7 are only separated by cache and clock speeds so there you go. This proposition has existed for years.

 

And I can only repeat myself again. The low power models suffer the same. So what's the common denominator? 

32 minutes ago, Arika S said:

You seem real desperate to hate on Intel for this, for some current unknown reason.

 

So let's change the scenario a bit.

A car manufacturer produces this brand new supercar looks amazing and is capable of going 250km/h. However they decided to grow on some tires that were designed for sedans that are only rated to go 130 km/h anything above this and they would rip apart. So to prevent this the manufacturer imposed a system that when the car is reaching 130km/h they restrict the amount of power coming from the engine so the tires don't destroy themselves.

 

So who do you blame? The manufacturer for choosing absolutely dumb tires that can keep up with the engine? Or the tire manufacturer for creating tires that can not go over 130km/h despite never being designed to go on a supercar?

The whole CFL mobile lineup is plagued by power issues. That's why. It's false packaging. That's not desperation. It's reality. If Apple was the only one with issues I wouldn't even mention it but we see pretty much every vendor have issues to some degree. But people have tunnel vision so it gets turned into "hur dur Apple" which is usually universally true but there's more to it this time. Apple still have their shenanigans but when you have to avoid all but the bottom tier SKU in each lineup to avoid problems then there's an issue. I'd also call it an issue if vendors suddenly need to redesign all their products. Not an unfixable issue but I'm not convinced Intel's partners would be particularly happy having to spend even more money just to do their yearly refresh. There's a reason laptops (or any other product for that matter) don't get redesigned every year.