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

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, NinerL said:

Seems to be fixed now.  https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/24/throttling-fix-2018-macbook-pro-improvements/

The images so far i seen shows that they just disabled turbo boost and it only goes up to 2,9 GHz...

[Drak3]

11 hours ago, TechGod said:

Worst computers ever put to market? You're kidding right? 

Well, worst hexacore Macbook to market.

 

Still better than anything sporting a green snake triad on the back.

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Well, worst hexacore Macbook to market.

 

Still better than anything sporting a green snake triad on the back.

One overheats 

 

The other overheats, flakes paint, falls victim to ground loops and counting 

[Commodus]

13 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

Name ONE computer that is more poorly designed than this US$3000 machine.

 

One.

 

13 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

That's nonsense.

 

This is a hardware issue. People have already made software changes and still found throttling.

 

You're paying for an i9 CPU

 

But you're getting a dud. No software patches are going to change a faulty hardware design and lack of cooling.

 

I also dismiss Apple's bench marks. They have used active cooling there. Like a water chiller. Or put the MacBook in a freezer.

 

Addressing both to save extra back and forth.

 

First... really?  You're really going to claim this is the worst-designed PC in history?

 

I could name worse examples for days.  eMachines' early computers had terrible, unreliable designs; all those thin-client home PCs from the turn of the decade; well-meaning but very limited devices like the Surface RT (Microsoft has had a history of reliability problems with Surfaces, by the way); and let's not forget the legions of laptops made from flimsy plastic, with terrible batteries, frustrating trackpads, loud fans and clunky bodies.  Hell, I remember the Toshiba Satellite I bought in 2002.  It was thick, heavy, slow and short-lived when it didn't have to be; if you think the MBP's since-fixed throttling was a problem, this system would shut down because of its poor heat and power management.  It was so bad that I bought a PowerBook G4 to replace it several months later.

 

As we've seen since, the update did fix the MacBook Pro's throttling issue.  There are some performance tests that are significantly faster.  There's only so much Apple can do given the thin and light design (which was a conscious choice), but this is not a dud.

 

And if you're going to accuse Apple of cheating on benchmarks, you need evidence.  No exceptions, no excuses.  I'm sure Apple was picking benchmarks that favored its new systems, but you need more than "I feel they're cheating" to make that assertion.  How do you know they weren't testing with pre-production firmware that didn't have the problem, for instance?  I'm not saying they did, but that's the thing -- I'm not going to make presumptions about the legitimacy of Apple's tests without the full facts, and past practices suggest the explanation is far less sinister than you want it to be.

 

Look, it's obvious that you have a hate-on for Apple.  And that irrational hatred is leading you to make some hyperbolic, unsupported claims because you 'need' Apple to be the worst.  What happened to taking a realistic, nuanced view?  The MacBook Pro's throttling problem was unacceptable, even though it was fixed quickly; but that doesn't mean it's a complete disaster.  People will continue buying the MacBook Pro, and the majority of them will be legitimately happy with it.

[D13H4RD]

I wouldn't say "fixed" but it made it perform much better.

 

So much so that it's actually showing a significant improvement. It's not running as well as it probably should, but on the bright side, at least it's not throttling to the point of literally killing the VRMs.....yet

[PeterBocan]

It's not a fix. It's a mitigation. 

If it was a fix the processor would work at 4.8 GHz during the rendering time.

[D13H4RD]

5 minutes ago, PeterBocan said:

If it was a fix the processor would work at 4.8 GHz during the rendering time.

It won't.

 

4.8GHz is only reached either when only one core is active or when overclocked.

 

Because rendering usually puts all 6 cores into action, the actual boost frequency stock is 4.3GHz

 

Also note that Turbo Boost isn't really designed for constant boost, especially in machines that don't have good cooling. As such, it's meant to be used in bursts to give a boost when necessary and when power/temp limits allow. If a machine is well-cooled however, boost frequencies can be maintained and usually stay there such as my ASUS GL502

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I wouldn't say "fixed" but it made it perform much better.

 

So much so that it's actually showing a significant improvement. It's not running as well as it probably should, but on the bright side, at least it's not throttling to the point of literally killing the VRMs.....yet

It's fixed in that it's now operating around  the thermal levels you'd expect given the design.

 

And that's really all I think we should be looking for.  This was destined to be a refresh of the existing design, so if Apple was going to directly compete with thicker, aggressively cooled laptops (not necessarily by going thicker), it wasn't going to be with this update.  I'd still call it a fast system, just fast relative to its dimensions.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

And that's really all I think we should be looking for.  This was destined to be a refresh of the existing design, so if Apple was going to directly compete with thicker, aggressively cooled laptops (not necessarily by going thicker), it wasn't going to be with this update.  I'd still call it a fast system, just fast relative to its dimensions.

I remember that I said that all I asked for is for it to maintain base.

 

I don't think that chassis can ever cool such a chip in its current configuration. The only real way is a significant redesign, which won't be happening for 2 years at least

[79wjd]

7 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

It won't.

 

4.8GHz is only reached either when only one core is active or when overclocked.

 

Because rendering usually puts all 6 cores into action, the actual boost frequency stock is 4.3GHz

 

Also note that Turbo Boost isn't really designed for constant boost, especially in machines that don't have good cooling. As such, it's meant to be used in bursts to give a boost when necessary and when power/temp limits allow. If a machine is well-cooled however, boost frequencies can be maintained and usually stay there such as my ASUS GL502

It's almost like there's a reason that turbo boost exists rather than just making the base clock higher.

[AlwaysFSX]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Dingle said:

Please get off your high horse

 

Apple deserves the roast (pun intended) just as any other manufacturer does , but more so since charging the amount of money they do for a product with fundemental flaws is laughable . 

 

And i hope people understand that an "outrage" over this can only benefit Apple customers as such . Or did i get the memo wrong and people like getting ripped off ?

First they have to accept Apple made a mistake with their sub-par cooling hardware.

[D13H4RD]

13 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

First they have to accept Apple made a mistake with their sub-par cooling hardware.

Or subpar VRMs

 

Or a keyboard that starts to fail against tiny specks of dust because Apple wanted to shave off a tenth of an inch from the laptop's depth.

 

I recently fired up my 2009 MacBook Pro after some time and it still stuns me that this 9 year old laptop is still working nicely. And it still has a perfectly working keyboard

[AlwaysFSX]

5 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Or subpar VRMs

 

Or a keyboard that starts to fail against tiny specks of dust because Apple wanted to shave off a tenth of an inch from the laptop's depth.

 

I recently fired up my 2009 MacBook Pro after some time and it still stuns me that this 9 year old laptop is still working nicely. And it still has a perfectly working keyboard

Oh right. Instead of cooling the power delivery we should just pay more for the parts made of unobtanium so they can run at 200C so the CPU can finally not throttle because the VRM is overheating. Ignoring that the CPU itself is getting toasty too.

 

Gotcha.

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Oh right. Instead of cooling the power delivery we should just pay more for the parts made of unobtanium so they can run at 200C so the CPU can finally not throttle because the VRM is overheating. Ignoring that the CPU itself is getting toasty too.

 

Gotcha.

Or they could just, you know, make it a little thicker to accommodate a better cooler.

 

So both the CPU and VRMs aren't running at a temperature that makes it perform excellent double duty as a coffee warmer.

 

Because Coffee Lake and coffee warmer. Get it? Coffee?

[Dylanc1500]

17 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Or they could just, you know, make it a little thicker to accommodate a better cooler.

 

So both the CPU and VRMs aren't running at a temperature that makes it perform excellent double duty as a coffee warmer.

 

Because Coffee Lake and coffee warmer. Get it? Coffee?

Correction: Starbucks warmer, these are MacBook Pro users.

 

joking

[Drak3]

6 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Correction: Starbucks warmer, these are MacBook Pro users.

 

joking

Don't let @RorzNZ hear you talk bad about his vaguely coffee flavored sugar milk.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Don't let @RorzNZ hear you talk bad about his vaguely coffee flavored sugar milk.

I’ll have you know I drink a venti oreo caramel mocha with a dash of cream and advocado toast.