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

[D13H4RD]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

"that test was pushing a 6000$ machine to its limit so it doesn't count"

 

This doesn't change the fact that the performance increase is minimal compared to what you'd expect from adding 2 full cores and running them at a higher frequency, it doesn't excuse the fact that you can use a software tweak that takes 10 seconds to set up to increase that performance by 20%, it doesn't mean the cooling is anywhere near adequate for what they're actually selling.

That's not even the biggest problem with the video.

 

The biggest problem is what he was testing.

 

I appreciate Jon's efforts, but he didn't explain much except the Core i9 is faster, either by a little or by quite a bit depending on workload. Duh, but it wasn't those that were the chief complaints, rather the consequence.

 

The chief complaint is that the CPU isn't even able to maintain its base clockspeed due to very aggressive thermal throttling. I don't get why this wasn't tested.

 

Also, the title. "Everyone is wrong". Exactly which part? The throttling or the hysteria that came about because of it?

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

The chief complaint is that the CPU isn't even able to maintain its base clockspeed due to very aggressive thermal throttling. I don't get why this wasn't tested.

The point of the video is to disprove the claim that the Core i7 MacBook Pros are faster than the Core i9 MacBook Pros because of thermal throttling. The reality is the Core i9 is faster in every test, despite the thermal conditions. 

 

He wasn't testing clock speeds, he wasn't testing temperatures, he was purely testing speed. 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

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

Maybe we're watching different videos, he didn't even mention the topic of this post (presumably because the source article was just published) and most of his arguments can be boiled down to "in some situations the cpu is pretty fast and faster than the lower end model". Given the specs, it should never be slower than the lower end model and there's no excuse for the terrible throttling curves.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Maybe we're watching different videos, he didn't even mention the topic of this post (presumably because the source article was just published) and most of his arguments can be boiled down to "in some situations the cpu is pretty fast and faster than the lower end model". Given the specs, it should never be slower than the lower end model and there's no excuse for the terrible throttling curves.

You missed the point of the video entirely which I explained in the comment above yours. 

[asus killer]

40 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

It's practically in every high end gaming laptop. Some throttle, some don't. 

 

It's also used in similar MBP style laptops like Dell XPS 15 and Asus Zenbook Pro 15.

The XPS throttles but it does that with i7 processors too. Zenbook throttles too but can boost for a short while before hitting base. 

 

It should be noted they throttle to various degrees. I think the gaming laptops can keep some boost while the 'premium productivity' laptops run at base after a short while.

 

I'm just going off memory here so there may be some inaccuracies.

 

The MacBooks have no checks to power and thermals except when it hits the 100 degree wall then it actually starts to do something but by then it's too late. And it'll keep choking itself every time the temps drop. It's so stupid and simplistic in its implementation that you can't believe the same company managed to squeeze so much out of their iPhones.

 

[D13H4RD]

6 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The point of the video is to disprove the claim that the Core i7 MacBook Pros are faster than the Core i9 MacBook Pros because of thermal throttling. The reality is the Core i9 is faster in every test, despite the thermal conditions.

Now I'm curious.

 

Was he using programs that stress the CPU and/or a combined heavy CPU + GPU load?

 

Those are the conditions in how the i7 managed to outperform an i9.

 

Yes, I did watch it, but the heaviest program was probably FCPX and DaVinci, which isn't very taxing particularly due to QuickSync.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You missed the point of the video entirely which I explained in the comment above yours. 

 

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The point of the video is to disprove the claim that the Core i7 MacBook Pros are faster than the Core i9 MacBook Pros because of thermal throttling. The reality is the Core i9 is faster in every test, despite the thermal conditions. 

 

He wasn't testing clock speeds, he wasn't testing temperatures, he was purely testing speed. 

Uhm... no, I didn't miss this and I said as much in my posts. This is not "every grievance" people have with this product (by a long shot) and the very least it can do it be faster than the lower end model. "Every test" is also hardly true... HIS tests, sure, but the whole debacle spawned off of a test showing the opposite. Whether that test was a realistic use case or not is up for debate, but it doesn't suddenly cease existing because that guy said so.

 

Again, it doesn't change the fact that Apple ignored the power curve which caused it to be significantly slower than it could have been even with throttling, which is what this news topic is about.

[D13H4RD]

On a side note, if you own any MacBook, I heavily recommend using this

 

Problem with every modern MacBook is the very conservative fan profile. This often means that by the time your fans kick in, the CPU would already be close to TJ Max. This allows you to set a custom fan curve so you can have them ramp up much sooner.

[DrDerp]

IMO, I think that for a whole new CPU with such taxing heat demands, Apple should have waited and redesigned the MacBook Pro. There’s no good for them to release such an expensive product that is infirior to their other devices. Sure it may be faster in some situations, but the thing is it shouldn’t just be some with the Core i9. It should be all.

[avg123]

13 minutes ago, asus killer 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.

[avg123]

4 minutes ago, DrDerp said:

IMO, I think that for a whole new CPU with such taxing heat demands, Apple should have waited and redesigned the MacBook Pro. There’s no good for them to release such an expensive product that is infirior to their other devices. Sure it may be faster in some situations, but the thing is it shouldn’t just be some with the Core i9. It should be all.

No amount of redesign is going to fix an i9 from throttling unless Apple makes the macbook 2 inches thick and 10 lbs in weight.

[D13H4RD]

5 minutes ago, avg123 said:

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

Not always. In applications which stress the CPU heavily or both CPU + GPU, it'll match the 8750H at best

 

Also, this laptop. Slightly thicker than the older MacBook Pro but can handle the same 8950HK at 4.3GHz.

 

I'm not blaming Apple, but I'm blaming shitty design.

 

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Aorus-X9-DT-i9-8950HK-GTX-1080-FHD-Laptop-Review.299340.0.html

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, avg123 said:

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

I can DEFINITELY blame the macbook for charging 6000$ for a throttling i9. If they can't cool it they shouldn't have put it in. Oh, and the i7 model throttles as well in case you forgot.

[D13H4RD]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I can DEFINITELY blame the macbook for charging 6000$ for a throttling i9. If they can't cool it they shouldn't have put it in. Oh, and the i7 model throttles as well in case you forgot.

Also, that Acer was running at 4.89GHz.

 

All I'm asking for is an i9 MBP that doesn't drop below base in anything but super-heavy synthetic workloads

[avg123]

8 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Not always. In applications which stress the CPU heavily or both CPU + GPU, it'll match the 8750H at best

 

Also, this laptop. Slightly thicker than the older MacBook Pro but can handle the same 8950HK at 4.3GHz.

 

I'm not blaming Apple, but I'm blaming shitty design.

 

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Aorus-X9-DT-i9-8950HK-GTX-1080-FHD-Laptop-Review.299340.0.html

The Aorus is twice as thick as the macbook, weighs twice as much and is 3 inches taller and wider.

[josencarnacao]

44 minutes ago, Mr.Dingle said:

Quite an arrogant statement there , dont you think ?

Perhaps we all should ask any other brand to build and sell a computer, overpricing it, and all the top-notch specs and no thermal-engineering so it can't make use of all the hardware you cram in it. Perhaps if another manufacture does that avg123 will sleep again.

 

No respectful manufacturer would sell a top-notch computer for productivity, constantly pushing the crap out of it like Video Encoding and other computing-intensive applications.

 

Apple did not made that laptop for gaming. It's for Pros. It's for Business. It's not for fooling around... and specially it's not for opening some Facebook Pages, Porn and occasionally some Spreadsheets.

 

Edit: Looks like Gigabyte Aero 15X, using the same Intel Core i9 8950HK can't reach top Turbo Speeds without throttling,but at least it surpasses it's baseline speed. AND this computer is deemed for gaming.

 

Since no thermal solution was included in the design of that computer, there is no Recall program to replace parts that can fix this issue. Apple will have to bite the bullet and Refund all customers. Maybe then they can save their face, although I think that their Hipster-arrogant-mentality will not go away and thus someday Apple will render worthless instead of the Billions the Stock Exchange bets they are worth.

 

If I had stock on Apple, I would have sold them yesterday with no thought given. Not because of panic, but because this is the beginning of the end. How long? It's a matter of time...

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, avg123 said:

The Aorus is twice as thick as the macbook, weighs twice as much and is 3 inches taller and wider.

And it's still not exactly a massive behemoth unlike the ASUS G703.

 

It's not compact but it isn't bone-crushingly massive either. Compared to other 17-inch machines, that one is petite by comparison.

[PeterBocan]

33 minutes ago, avg123 said:

Apple is only quoting the manufacturer specs. i9 macbook contains a processor capable upto 4.8 ghz processor.

When Intel says that Intel Core i9 can boost up to 4.8 GHz it means the following: Under optimal cooling using proper heat dissipation your CPU can run at 4.8 GHz

When Apple says that Intel Core i9 can boost up to 4.8 GHz it means the following: We are able to deliver the cooling to handle 45 W TDP to run at 4.8 GHz.

 

When two companies says the same, it doesn't mean the same. 

[DrMacintosh]

22 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

On a side note, if you own any MacBook, I heavily recommend using this

 

Problem with every modern MacBook is the very conservative fan profile. This often means that by the time your fans kick in, the CPU would already be close to TJ Max. This allows you to set a custom fan curve so you can have them ramp up much sooner.

I found out that I had to purchase the software eventually so I uninstalled it. 

 

Also HIDE YOUR DOCK (and update iMovie and GarageBand) 

[D13H4RD]

5 minutes ago, PeterBocan said:

When Intel says that Intel Core i9 can boost up to 4.8 GHz it means the following: Under optimal cooling using proper heat dissipation your CPU can run at 4.8 GHz

When Apple says that Intel Core i9 can boost up to 4.8 GHz it means the following: We are able to deliver the cooling to handle 45 W TDP to run at 4.8 GHz.

 

When two companies says the same, it doesn't mean the same. 

One more thing.

 

The officially quoted Turbo Boost speed has a condition. The i9 8950HK will only reach 4.8GHz under one of these conditions;

• When a single core is actively utilized and temperature/power limits apply
• When the chipset is overclocked to 4.8GHz and temperature/power limits apply

When all 6 cores are active, the actual Turbo Boost frequency at stock is 4.3GHz

 

Nothing new here. It's been that way for a long time.

[avg123]

4 minutes ago, PeterBocan said:

When Intel says that Intel Core i9 can boost up to 4.8 GHz it means the following: Under optimal cooling using proper heat dissipation your CPU can run at 4.8 GHz

When Apple says that Intel Core i9 can boost up to 4.8 GHz it means the following: We are able to deliver the cooling to handle 45 W TDP to run at 4.8 GHz.

 

When two companies says the same, it doesn't mean the same. 

The i9 has over 110W tdp at 4.8ghz. The previous gen i7 had 45w tdp at max turbo.

Intel changed the definition of tdp with coffelake.

 

Also the i9 can reach 4.8ghz in the macbook, so will not be able to sue apple with that.

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, avg123 said:

Intel changed the definition of tdp with coffelake.

They never did

Quote

Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.

That has been their definition of TDP for a very long time now. It's just that with Coffee Lake Mobile CPUs, it's actually come full-circle to following that very definition letter-by-letter

[josencarnacao]

20 minutes ago, avg123 said:

The Aorus is twice as thick as the macbook, weighs twice as much and is 3 inches taller and wider.

And no one will care for the larger/heavier specs, 'cause they will be able to make more money out of it.
Unless they have osteoporosis, sliped discs or other medical condition that makes ALL the difference in the world to justify purchasing a scam.

[PeterBocan]

8 minutes ago, avg123 said:

The i9 has over 110W tdp at 4.8ghz. The previous gen i7 had 45w tdp at max turbo.

Intel changed the definition of tdp with coffelake.

 

Also the i9 can reach 4.8ghz in the macbook, so will not be able to sue apple with that.

Well, duh... I think Intel had ULV Core i7s for quite some time now, they are at 10, 15, 22W TDP on a Base clock ~2.5GHz Which, including TurboBoost can get up to 40-45W TDP. If your processor starts at 45W TDP and you multiply it by a factor of 2. or 2,5 as a Turbo you get the 110W. Sooo, which Apple Engineer doesn't understand the TurboBoost and TDP? 

[avg123]

4 minutes ago, josencarnacao said:

And no one will care for the larger/heavier specs, 'cause they will be able to make more money out of it.
Unless they have osteoporosis, sliped discs or other medical condition that makes ALL the difference in the world to justify purchasing a scam.

Laptop weight and thickness is a significant factor in purchasing decision of laptops. The Aorus was created to decrease the size and weight of gaming laptops.

They would not have cared to make such a laptop if nobody minded big, heavy laptops.

 

The macbook is significantly smaller and lighter than the Aorus. The kind of people buying a macbook would buy a dell xps not a aorus.