2018 macbook pro runs faster if you limit the cpu via software

[captain_to_fire]

16 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Did you watch the video? He addresses every grievance with the Core i9 MacBook Pros. 

No he did not. He is moving the goalposts. He is accusing Adobe of not optimizing Premiere for the Mac to accusing Dave2D of skewing the results by apparently using the wrong codec. Finally, he failed to address the issue that the i9 MBP can’t maintain base clock. Basically Jonathan’s argument can be boiled down to “Don’t use Premiere with a Mac”. ? 

 

His results aren’t corroborated by others like 9to5 Mac who also used FCP X so I can’t help but think that Jonathan rigged his own results like he seems oblivious that the iMac Pro with Xeon processors doesn’t have Quick Sync which is the reason why FCP X works well or the fact that disabling two cores will make it work better. https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/18/how-macbook-pro-throttles-with-final-cut-pro-x/ 

[Dackzy]

6 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Exactly that is the Problem!
If they mess up the device, they need to be called out.
Look at this Video, that is the problem and leads to shitty hardware!

 

And that is what the people are missing.

 

Yes, because the form factor of those devices is just utter bullshit.

You can use that with low power components like a 5W TDP CPU, maybe even 15W. 

 

But not a 45W TDP CPU with an additional graphics card. That is like asking for trouble. 

 

But the design over function philosophy of apple doesn't make sense for such high end, high performance systems. There might be a solution for that -> using the bottom as a heatsink. But they don't do that. And its pretty hard (and expensive) to do. So you want normal heatsink and a good airflow inside the device. You don't have either.

 

totally agree. 

Your statement is totally on point!

Couldn't have said it better.

 

And its sad that the IT Market is so broken and you don't find good hardware for good prices...

If you want the performance and a device that renders, is there an alternative to a Thinkpad??

Ah yes the cult of Apple video and he nails it, as someone who has worked in a repair shop I can tell you that he nails the mindset of most of the people that had broken MacBooks or iPhones. They would rarely ever blame Apple for making a bad design, but rather themselves for not using it correctly. Kinda scary when you think about it.

 

There are a lot of small things they can do that can improve cooling a lot. They could use some better thermal paste, they could make bigger vents for both intake and exhaust, they could make the laptops a bit thicker and then make the cooling solution bigger.

 

Let's be honest in your day to day life you aren't going to notice the difference between let's say 16mm and 18mm in thickness nor are you going to notice a jump from 1.8kg without the charger to 2kg without the charger.

 

I don't understand the people that complain so much about weight and say they are students, well so am I. I carry 2-3 books with me almost everyday at uni and they are all around 800-1200 pages plus notes, paper, mouse, headphones and a 3Dconnexion mouse, I don't really find the weight to be a problem. Plus if the weight is really such a problem for you, then you could buy ebook versions of the books you need.

 

At this point in time I will say that if you complain about the weight of basically any reasonable laptop (so not like those desktop replacement laptops) then you should start working out. 2.5kg is so light and to imagine that you can get workstation laptops with proper cooling that weigh about that is just amazing and you can also get well specced gaming laptops that are proper cooled in this weight class. I can understand the weight complaint if you are a child, but then again I have seen many children owning laptops that weigh above 2.5kg(since I have fixed laptops for a living and they tend to be pretty careless) and I remember back when I was in elementary school I had a lot of books and lose papers in my backpack.

 

These MacBooks have just become so form over function focused that it is scary. They made a basically no travel keyboard that breaks easily and really isn't enjoyable, just so they could shave off what 1-2mm in the thickness. My friends that use MacBooks with this keyboard say that they like it after a while, but then when they try my ThinkPad keyboard then they fall in love with it... 

 

Well you have HP zBook 15 G5 or 17 G5 and the Dell Precision 7000 series and they are all wonderful. Just don't get the precision 5000 series since that I based on the XPS 15 and it becomes pretty useless once you start pushing it, just like this MacBook.

 

All in all I think that people should stop defending half-assed work like this, because if they do then we will see companies change their ways.

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, TechGod said:

First off, it’s not a scam. 

 

Secondly im a uni student with a CompSci major and I have textbooks I need to carry around. A thin and light laptop is greatly appreciated like honestly people like you piss me off to no end. 

 

Just becahse you value specs over portability IN A LAPTOP doesn’t mean others do as well. Why do you think the XPS lineup exists? 

And tell me, do you need a 6000$ core i9 in that thin and light laptop? I got through my software engineering degree just fine with a refurbished dual core thinkpad, I think you can get by with a quad core...

 

Those who may actually need the i9 are usually people who value performance over portability.

 

That's not to say that portability is not appreciated, but it shouldn't come at the cost of crippling the machine's performance.

[Zodiark1593]

14 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

 

I will mention I once carried around an HP ZD8000 in college (borrowed when my other laptop died). The power brick alone dwarfed a Macbook in weight. Just the display of the laptop itself is thicker than an entire Macbook. The thing could probably "nom nom" on several Macbooks at once.

[mark_cameron]

23 hours ago, Sauron said:

Further fueling the dumpster fire that the 2018 Macbook Pro is turning out to be, notebookcheck.net has discovered that by manually limiting power consumption you can actually get better performance.

 

Apparently, Apple elected to ONLY use temperature as a parameter for ramping up clock speeds, which results in the cpu not having enough time to cool down before trying to boost again. This leads to fluctuations that severely harm performance.

 

The website then tried to limit power draw manually, using third party software tools.

 

And lo and behold, they managed to get better and consistent performance out of the macbooks.

                windows 10 without TDP adjustments                            windows 10 with fixed 45W settings

 

It's not a small increase either, they managed to get about 20% more performance in cinebench.

 

 

Personally I find this completely ridiculous - given the price they ask for these things this is an unforgivable engineering oversight and a display of either incompetence or contempt for Apple customers. What's even funnier is that it ends up performing slightly better under Windows thanks to better third party software (you can read more about this in the source, I couldn't copy the full table here because it's formatted in a weird way).

 

On the bright side, this looks like something that could be solved with a firmware update as soon as Apple starts giving a damn. In the meanwhile, if you bought one of these you can use Intel XTU (on windows, freeware) or Volta (on macOS, paid software) to get some of the performance you paid for.

 

So. Does this 20% more performance take it over the i7 performance level or is it still behind?

[D13H4RD]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

I got through my software engineering degree just fine with a refurbished dual core thinkpad, I think you can get by with a quad core...

I use an Acer Aspire 4750 for my CS classes. 

 

It only has an i3 2310M and it's slightly thicker (by literally a hair) than my ASUS gaming laptop, but it gets by absolutely fine, especially since it recently got an SSD

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

 

So. Does this 20% more performance take it over the i7 performance level or is it still behind?

Both models perform better with this adjustment, either way the i7 only has an advantage in certain workloads. We'd need more tests to see how they compare across the board.

[potoooooooo]

23 hours ago, Sauron said:

Since there's a gui program that "just works" and those buying an i9 probably need the extra performance I'd say they're fairly likely to actually do this - I don't think most would be willing to undervolt though.

Those probably wouldn't even consider the 6000$ i9 model.

The i9 only costs 300 dollars more compared to the 2.6 i7. It's not 6000 dollars.

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, potoooooooo said:

The i9 only costs 300 dollars more compared to the 2.6 i7. It's not 6000 dollars.

$6000 is the price of a fully specced out model with 4TB of SSD storage. 

 

It's closer to $3000. Still expensive 

[potoooooooo]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

$6000 is the price of a fully specced out model with 4TB of SSD storage. 

 

It's closer to $3000. Still expensive 

6700 dollars is the price of the fully specced out model.

 

The i9 but otherwise base is 3100. The base price, as it has been since 2016, is 2400.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

6700 dollars is the price of the fully specced out model.

 

The i9 but otherwise base is 3100. The base price, as it has been since 2016, is 2400.

Close enough although it is still considered pricey 

[79wjd]

10 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

The i9 only costs 300 dollars more compared to the 2.6 i7. It's not 6000 dollars.

Very much so this. 

 

It doesn't excuse the throttling, and it's still an expensive upgrade that often leads to performance losses, but let's not pretend that it's a multi-thousand dollar upgrade. It's +$400 on the base model and +$300 on the higher end model. 

10 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

6700 dollars is the price of the fully specced out model.

 

The i9 but otherwise base is 3100. The base price, as it has been since 2016, is 2400.

The higher end system (560x rather than 555x and 512gb rather than 256gb) with an i9 is $3100, the base system with an i9 is $2800.

[vorticalbox]

On 21/07/2018 at 2:33 PM, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Undervolting is a common thing for techies to do with their laptops

Not just laptops but phones too, back in the day a spent a long under volting and overclocking my HTC one x.

 

I got a decent overclock with lower than stock voltages.

 

 

[Brooksie359]

On 7/21/2018 at 11:51 AM, avg123 said:

Are you seriously comparing THAT laptop with a macbook?

The lid of that laptop is thicker than the macbook.

 

If that is what is required to run a i9 without throttling, you cannot blame the macbook for throttling.

 

Who wants to carry a brick like that?

 

And even a throttling i9 mac is faster than the i7.

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. 

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

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. 

Honestly, I find putting all of the blame on Intel to be rather silly. 

 

Yes, they made a CPU that runs so hot at boost, only big desktop replacements have even a hope of taming it. But doesn't Apple, Dell, etc. have a choice to not put in in their machines? 

 

If it indeed does run that hot, why didn't they opt to not put it in? 

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Honestly, I find putting all of the blame on Intel to be rather silly. 

People that blame intel is because of pure ignorance. 

 

Intel made a chip. Regardless of what the specs are in terms of TDP we know how much heat it puts out at load and what it takes to cool it. Either way engineers would have caught it in testing....or at least should have. 

[D13H4RD]

6 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Either way engineers would have caught it in testing....or at least should have. 

Which begs the question. 

 

Did they test it? If so, did they catch the throttling? If so, why was it launched in this state? 

[Stefan Payne]

Can it get any worse??

 

Yes, it can!

 

 

Nothing more to say it seems...

[Stefan Payne]

3 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Honestly, I find putting all of the blame on Intel to be rather silly. 

No, its at around 30-40% of the blame on the Intel Side...

[PeterBocan]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, its at around 30-40% of the blame on the Intel Side...

Stop shifting the blame for the love of God  ... you are doing it the whole week and it looks very silly on your side. 

 

Intel has no say in the decision what Apple puts in their macbooks, so stop it.

[PeterBocan]