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

[Stefan Payne]

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The problem is not the definition, it's that you don't understand it.

Call it defense, but if you weren't lying about it all the time no one would say anything.

The Problem is that you don't have any argumnts and have to insult the other because you are not able to convince him/her with words, you result in calling him/her names.

As you did on your definition of TVs, where you called a Monitor a TV. Because 65" Monitors can not exist...

 

Anyway: The Problem here is:

a) the shitty Boosting of Intel CPUs that the manufacturer can't define in the BIOS (ie relaxed/quiet or performance)

b) that the CPU consumes way more than the 45W it is advertized as

c) the "TDP" is just an outright lie from Intel and they shouldn't have mentioned it to the public at all or just not call it TDP.

 

Its just some bullshit games like in the olden days when some Companys came up with ACP -> Average CPU Power and that is what this "TDP" you are referring to looks like. But not even that.

 

So the CPU runs into the thermal limit of the heatsink anyway.

 

If you see it differently, convince this guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

Quote

The TDP is typically not the largest amount of heat the CPU could ever generate (peak power), such as by running a power virus, but rather the maximum amount of heat that it would generate when running "real applications". 

Or the Introduction:

Quote

The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component (often the CPU or GPU) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate under any workload.

 

And that is the usually accepted form of TDP.

What you are talking about is some average CPU Power thingy or however you want to call it but not the real TDP!

[Stefan Payne]

33 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Also, the watts used in TDP are a measure of heat.

 

Watts in TDP does not necessarily equal to Watts in package power 

ärr, what?!

 

TDP is what specifies the value the Heatsink of a Device should be designed for. Or in some cases also the DC-DC Converters aka VRM.

So 150W TDP means heatsink has to be able to cool 150W. 

 

But if the CPU right now consumes 150W, it also generates about that in heat because there is no other form of energy that the CPU can produce or its negligable.

 

So why do you claim that the amount something has to cool is not the ammount the CPU consumes??

where else should the Power go?

 

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

So why do you claim that the amount something has to cool is not the ammount the CPU consumes??

where else should the Power go?

>.>

 

I thought you would know that watts is a measure of energy regardless of heat and electricity...

 

Just that they’re implemented in different applications.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

The Problem is that you don't have any argumnts and have to insult the other because you are not able to convince him/her with words, you result in calling him/her names.

As you did on your definition of TVs, where you called a Monitor a TV. Because 65" Monitors can not exist...

 

Anyway: The Problem here is:

a) the shitty Boosting of Intel CPUs that the manufacturer can't define in the BIOS

b) that the CPU consumes way more than the 45W it is advertized as

c) the "TDP" is just an outright lie from Intel and they shouldn't have mentioned it to the public.

 

Its just some bullshit games like in the olden days when some Companys came up with ACP -> Average CPU Power and that is what this "TDP" you are referring to looks like. But not even that.

 

So the CPU runs into the thermal limit of the heatsink anyway.

 

If you see it differently, convince this guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

Or the Introduction:

 

And that is the usually accepted form of TDP.

What you are talking about is some average CPU Power thingy or however you want to call it but not the real TDP!

Woah, if you knew anything about TDP you'd understand why what you just posted is sooooo wrong.

 

to address your points:

a) call shitty if you want, but boosting hasn't changed. Not even sure you know what BIOS is TBH.

b)The CPU is not advertised to consume 45W. 

c)it is not a lie, you are wrong, ignorant, naive and hopefully not just trolling.

 

It has been explained to you know by 4 different people, you have been told the TDP rating is accurate.  Your failure to grasp how TDP works is not Intel lying, it's you failing to understand.

 

Wikipedia talks about generic TDP,  Intel has defined the conditions for their rating, but you seem incapable of understanding this simple fact.

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

7 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I thought you would know that watts is a measure of energy regardless of heat and electricity...

 

Just that they’re implemented in different applications.

That wasn't my point.

 

It was that if 50W goes in, it has to come out of the device in one form or another. And a CPU isn't much more than a bunch of switching switches -> Transistors, there isn't much that a semi-conductor can produce besides heat. 

Its just those annoying propertys (capacitors, inductors usw) that normal materials tend to have wich causes this heat...

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Anyway: The Problem here is:

a) the shitty Boosting of Intel CPUs that the manufacturer can't define in the BIOS

b) that the CPU consumes way more than the 45W it is advertized as

c) the "TDP" is just an outright lie from Intel and they shouldn't have mentioned it to the public.

 

1. I am pretty sure manufacturers can define the boost of Intel CPUs.

2. The processor is not advertised as just using 45 watts.

3. The TDP is not a lie.

 

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Its just some bullshit games like in the olden days when some Companys came up with ACP -> Average CPU Power and that is what this "TDP" you are referring to looks like. But not even that.

 

So the CPU runs into the thermal limit of the heatsink anyway.

 

If you see it differently, convince this guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

Quote

The TDP is typically not the largest amount of heat the CPU could ever generate (peak power), such as by running a power virus, but rather the maximum amount of heat that it would generate when running "real applications". 

Or the Introduction:

Quote

The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component (often the CPU or GPU) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate under any workload.

 

And that is the usually accepted form of TDP.

What you are talking about is some average CPU Power thingy or however you want to call it but not the real TDP!

I don't get what you're trying to say. Even your own link spells it out for you clearly.

TDP is typically not the largest amount of heat the CPU could generate. I don't think any manufacturer defines it as that.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

ärr, what?!

 

TDP is what specifies the value the Heatsink of a Device should be designed for. Or in some cases also the DC-DC Converters aka VRM.

So 150W TDP means heatsink has to be able to cool 150W. 

 

But if the CPU right now consumes 150W, it also generates about that in heat because there is no other form of energy that the CPU can produce or its negligable.

 

So why do you claim that the amount something has to cool is not the ammount the CPU consumes??

where else should the Power go?

TDP is not defined as the maximum power draw, and let me tell you why.

TDP is used when designing coolers. It is a measurement of how much heat the processor generates on average (based on a certain workload over a certain period of time). Since CPU coolers are generally quite large (compared to the CPU die) the overall temperature of the heatsink changes quite slowly. That is why it is perfectly fine for a processor to exceeds the TDP the cooler is designed for, but only if done for short periods of time. Because even if the cooler is designed to handle 50 watts of heat, it won't have any problem dealing with 70 watts of heat for short periods as long as the average is still 50 watts.

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

am pretty sure manufacturers can define the boost of Intel CPUs.

To an extent, yes. They can't directly alter the firmware on the CPU, but they can easily tweak the BIOS to increase (to an extent)/decrease power and thermal limitations, implement MCE, force boost clock, or disable it. They can't increase the maximum single core boost clock.

[XenosTech]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

To an extent, yes. They can't directly alter the firmware on the CPU, but they can easily tweak the BIOS to increase (to an extent)/decrease power and thermal limitations, implement MCE, force boost clock, or disable it. They can't increase the maximum single core boost clock.

Think Zotac did that with one of their NUC like boxes. They gave it a power cap so the cpu hits a power limit so the cooling solutions can keep it at a reasonable temp

 

How the hell did we get from blaming intel to blaming adobe... What the hell is wrong with apple supporters lmfao

[Drak3]

25 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

How the hell did we get from blaming intel to blaming adobe... What the hell is wrong with apple supporters lmfao

I blame Trudeau.

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, XenosTech said:

How the hell did we get from blaming intel to blaming adobe... What the hell is wrong with apple supporters lmfao

I blame the sun

[XenosTech]

6 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I blame the sun

Now that you mention it.... I should have never cut my hair, why is the sun so hot dammit >.>

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

I blame Trudeau.

Now I need to google that one

[NelizMastr]

9 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I blame the sun

I blame Stefan. His personal processor has produced so much heat his reasoning started to thermal throttle.

[Stefan Payne]

5 hours ago, XenosTech said:

Now I need to google that one

No, don't.

Really don't.

Ever heard of "peoplekind"??

#NSFL

 

 

Anyway, Louis has a new Vid about this shit:

 

Well, seems worse than we thought...

[mark_cameron]

This summer truly is the 'summer of Thermal Throttling'

 

Apple being roasted on a spit.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

This summer truly is the 'summer of Thermal Throttling'

Thankful my room has a strong A/C 

 

[mark_cameron]

11 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Thankful my room has a strong A/C 

 

I just watched Louis YouTube video above.

 

If I were an Apple user I'd be giving up too at this point. It just gets worse and worse and worse.

 

This has to be one of the worst designed computers in history.

 

It's also clearly a scandal now too.

 

Louis expects many of these MacBook Pro's to fail inside of 18 months to 2 years due to poorly designed VRMs on the board incapable of operating to level needed for i9. Which will lead to major failures on boards and i9 fried CPU.

 

Clearly management oversight at Apple is non existent as they chase the $$$$$$$ by pushing out faulty products. Then stiffling any consumer criticism or news reporting. 

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

Louis expects many of these MacBook Pro's to fail inside of 18 months to 2 years due to poorly designed VRMs on the board incapable of operating to level needed for i9. Which will lead to major failures on boards and i9 fried CPU.

The problem is the profile. 

 

Apple is apparently using the same profile that has existed in other Intel-powered MacBooks for a while. It worked fine then because the earlier chips didn't demand that much power but Coffee Lake is different, especially the 8950HK. The cooling solution also apparently does not cover the VRMs, which if so, makes it doubly bad. 

 

I struggle to understand why Apple did not catch this during testing. Or they did but decided not to do anything? 

[mark_cameron]

6 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

The problem is the profile. 

 

Apple is apparently using the same profile that has existed in other Intel-powered MacBooks for a while. It worked fine then because the earlier chips didn't demand that much power but Coffee Lake is different, especially the 8950HK. The cooling solution also apparently does not cover the VRMs, which if so, makes it doubly bad. 

 

I struggle to understand why Apple did not catch this during testing. Or they did but decided not to do anything? 

I don't believe they did any testing.

 

A half competent designer + manager would have picked this up.

 

If they did test:

 

Which suggests there is something wrong in the corporate culture at Apple.

 

'DONT ROCK THE BOAT'

 

As in someone kept this quiet to not cause internal problems. Either that or QC/QA and regulatory/legal departments have been neutered by sales/PR in short sighted attempt to boost profits.

 

Instead of address the issues pre launch.

 

It's this sort of thing that gets people fired.

 

That's my take as to why this has happened. Internal business culture at Apple. Is to blame.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

As in someone kept this quiet to not cause internal problems. Either that or QC/QA and regulatory/legal departments have been neutered by sales/PR in short sighted attempt to boost profits.

Well, all I know is this. 

 

Apple (and Intel to a small degree but very much mostly Apple) have got eggs on their face. 

 

Fried eggs to be exact 

 

And everyone else with toaster i9 machines 

[mark_cameron]

6 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Well, all I know is this. 

 

Apple (and Intel to a small degree but very much mostly Apple) have got eggs on their face. 

 

Fried eggs to be exact 

 

And everyone else with toaster i9 machines 

It's still on sale:

 

https://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/

 

"More power.
More performance.
More pro"

 

"With great power comes great capability."

"MacBook Pro elevates the notebook to a whole new level of performance and portability. Wherever your ideas take you, you’ll get there faster than ever with high-performance processors and memory, advanced graphics, amazingly fast storage and more."

 

"More power at its cores.

With eighth-generation Intel Core processors, MacBook Pro reaches new heights in compute performance. The 15-inch model now features a 6-core Intel Core i9 processor that works up to 70 per cent faster than the previous generation, enabling up to 4.8GHz Turbo Boost speeds. And a quad-core processor on the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar now makes it up to twice as fast as the previous generation. So when you’re powering through pro-level processing jobs like compiling code, rendering 3D models, adding special effects, layering multiple tracks or encoding video, you’ll get everything done. Faster."

 

 

do you think anyone told marketing?

 

I don't blame Intel. This is purely Apple's fault. It's their machine. Their marketing claims.

 

A 'whole new level of performance' indeed.

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

I don't blame Intel. This is purely Apple's fault. It's their machine. Their marketing claims.

I personally put a very small portion of the blame on Intel for the general inefficiency of Coffee Lake Mobile but it's a very small one because it's already out and they can't design a new architecture overnight, so it's what we have to live with and it's not a surprising consequence that due to more cores and aggressive clocks that they would run hotter. 

 

Rather, Apple shouldn't have slapped it onto their machine if it can't handle it. They had a choice. 

[mark_cameron]

2 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I personally put a very small portion of the blame on Intel for the general inefficiency of Coffee Lake Mobile but it's a very small one because it's already out and they can't design a new architecture overnight, so it's what we have to live with and it's not a surprising consequence that due to more cores and aggressive clocks that they would run hotter. 

 

Rather, Apple shouldn't have slapped it onto their machine if it can't handle it. They had a choice. 

Exactly. Intel didn't force them to put it into the Apple machine. It's a processor for thicker laptops with liquid or other advanced cooling.

 

Apple are 100% to blame.

 

This is one of the worst computers ever put on the market.

 

Apple gets the award.

[D13H4RD]

4 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

Exactly. Intel didn't force them to put it into the Apple machine. It's a processor for thicker laptops with liquid or other advanced cooling.

 

Apple are 100% to blame.

In other words, Intel made an extreme CPU that technically should have only been in large desktop replacements with very beastly cooling solutions. 

 

It has no place being in a smaller laptop. I could go on about efficiency, architecture, Coffee Lake pushing the limits blah blah blah, but I'll keep it simple. 

 

If your laptop can't handle the 8950HK, then don't put it in. Period. If you feel that the CPU is grossly inefficient when in turbo, then there's the choice to not put it in and use the more efficient i7 models. 

 

For the VRMs though, I wouldn't say it's 100% Apple's fault. More like 110%. That's just inexcusable. 

[PeterBocan]

3 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

For the VRMs though, I wouldn't say it's 100% Apple's fault. More like 110%. That's just inexcusable. 

It is inexcusable by Apple, and yet, the virtuous Apple users in here have to defend the wealthiest corporation. 

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, PeterBocan said:

It is inexcusable by Apple, and yet, the virtuous Apple users in here have to defend the wealthiest corporation. 

The VRM issue can't be defended. It needs to be resolved stat.

 

Unless Apple is fine with having prematurely dying machines due to dead VRMs