Updated: Intel Removes Intel Power Gadget Utility Download Amidst MacBook Pro Controversy

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, juri-han said:

i wouldn't blame the engineers this is a boardroom move, they could have said no way the i9 can work with the current design and his boss says .... put it in anyway and we can charge $300 more for it and noone will notice 

Either way it is nothing to do with Intel nor the TDP rating.

[juri-han]

https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20

 

well its back! and updated, time to run those test over lol

[Stefan Payne]

5 hours ago, GilmourD said:

It reflects poorly on Intel because people see the i9 name in the media and don't understand what's going on.

No, because their Boost Mode is garbage and doesn't work the way it should.

 

Just look at the people telling that the performance is higher when they fiddle around with the CPU States. That should not happen.

 

Conclusion:

The Intel Boost doesn't work well and causes more harm than good.

That is what people feared when they first saw this boost nonsense. And it seems like that is the case here and one of the Problems.

[Stefan Payne]

4 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Remember this also happened in other i9 notebooks (Apple's is a bit worse though). It kinda makes it look like Intel is doing something a bit funny, but it could be Apple too. 

You mean things like lie about the actual TDP of the Chip?
Or violate the TDP and overshoot???

 

And don't offer hard TDP Limits that would have prevented this mess??

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

You know in every video that the Intel power tool also shows how much power the CPU is using right? TDP != Power Draw ever for CPUs, never has meant that.

 

 

Yes that is over 80W.

 

And yes the i7 has similar problems but much less of an issue so actually in many cases performs better than the i9

...and that seems to be the biggest problem here and that its not possible for the manufacturer of the Device to define Power Limits and implement it so that they can make their cooling for the chip.

 

What that looks like is that this isn't really a 45W TDP Chip and neither hasconfigurable TDP limit like AMD has implemented since Kaveri (just look for cTDP). 

So the CPU runs free and goes way over the TDP until the heatsink is saturated and throttles again.

 

That doesn't look like it is a particularly good idea. It might give you the edge in (some) benchmarks but in the long run it causes more trouble than its worth. And if you don't have hard TDP limits, you should at least give the maker of the machine or better the user the ability to fine tune the power consumption a bit and allow either a more safe/conservative setting and the shit what we have right now.

 

3 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Can't pin the blame on Intel for this at all.

Yes, you can!

You can blame Intel for this shitty boost mode that you can't fine tune for your device. THAT seems to be one of the Problems.

 

3 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Even if it is to keep up with Ryzen, Intel's means of adding more cores is every bit as valid as what AMD has done, and to be fair, I sincerely doubt a 6-core Ryzen cpu would fare any better in a Macbook than Intel's, probably much worse actually due to needing high speed memory.

You must not believe. That is something for church.

You must know and if you don't, just say that you don't know and don't go any further...

 

With Ryzen this wouldn't be happening by the way. Because AMD allows for custom TDP limiting by the device manufacturer!

!google "cTDP"

 

That is a feature since the later Bulldozer days and works really well. And doesn't allow for long "TDP Overshoot" like it is the case with this processor.

 

And Ryzen is more efficient than Core i! so it would consume less power than Intel as well and consumes less energy for the same load. It was against the i7-7700k at the time...

Would be interesting to do that again against coffee lake, don't you think??

3 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Had Apple wanted to, they could have paid Intel for a custom sku with altered behavior to minimize heat, or they could have just forgone the i9 altogether. No shame to not offer the highest end sku if the cooling design limits it too much.

Oh Intel does Custom SKU?

How do you know that? Any Information about that?!

 

 

 

And Intel is partly to blame too, just look at the picture @leadeater posted!

That should not be happening for a longer period of time...

It looks like the boost mode causes trouble!

 

 

 

[GilmourD]

30 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, because their Boost Mode is garbage and doesn't work the way it should.

 

Just look at the people telling that the performance is higher when they fiddle around with the CPU States. That should not happen.

 

Conclusion:

The Intel Boost doesn't work well and causes more harm than good.

That is what people feared when they first saw this boost nonsense. And it seems like that is the case here and one of the Problems.

But that isn't isolated to this situation. Let's lay blame where blame is deserved and be specific instead of spreading it around like a monkey with feces.

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, GilmourD said:

But that isn't isolated to this situation. Let's lay blame where blame is deserved and be specific

Yes and they deserve both the blame.

Intel for CPU overshooting the TDP by 10 miles

Apple for cheaping out on Heatsinking...

Yes, the Heatsink is borderline on Apple but the CPU also violates it.

 

You can say that Apple is more at fault, but with the Intel Power Tool Picture you can't say that Intel is completely without fault because it looks like it also violates the TDP and saturates the Heatsink.

 

And it seems like they don't give the Manufacturer of those machines the tools to fine tune the CPU for their setup either. 

 

Its take or leave it basically...

[Dabombinable]

10 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes and they deserve both the blame.

Intel for CPU overshooting the TDP by 10 miles

Apple for cheaping out on Heatsinking...

Yes, the Heatsink is borderline on Apple but the CPU also violates it.

 

You can say that Apple is more at fault, but with the Intel Power Tool Picture you can't say that Intel is completely without fault because it looks like it also violates the TDP and saturates the Heatsink.

 

And it seems like they don't give the Manufacturer of those machines the tools to fine tune the CPU for their setup either. 

 

Its take or leave it basically...

How it Intel's fault for Apple (or indeed other OEM) not designing cooling solutions for their computers that are adequate for the CPU specifications that Intel provides?

[Stefan Payne]

5 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

How it Intel's fault for Apple (or indeed other OEM) not designing cooling solutions for their computers that are adequate for the CPU specifications that Intel provides?

45W TDP CPU, consomes more than 45W, more like 50-55W, almost 60W, goes over 80W, how can THAT be the fault of Intel??

 

Yeah, I wonder.

Maybe because of the Boostmode, the CPU consuming way more than specified for example....

[abazigal]

12 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I hate to say it, but part of the reason why are due to the apologists. 

 

When this happens to a Windows laptop (which has), you'll see people quickly criticizing and even bash it. But if the same happens to the Mac, it goes into one of those "You're using it wrong" scenarios. 

 

That's one of the reasons why I was kinda let down by the Morisson video. Sure, it was informative to a degree and had some results, but I wasn't really keen in the statement that the results were "skewed" due to the use of Premiere and that the actual title of the video was kinda condescending by saying that everyone is "wrong" about the Core i9 MBP

He’s not entirely wrong. Just like his earlier video showing how Final Cut Pro runs smoothly on a MacBook, it just proves that Macs are optimised for certain workflows and suck at others. 

 

What he has done here is allow users to make a more informed decision. Which basically boils down to - use a Mac for Final Cut Pro and windows for premiere. Which is a far cry from “the new MacBook sucks at everything just because it sucks at premiere”. 

[Zodiark1593]

39 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

Oh Intel does Custom SKU?

How do you know that? Any Information about that?!

I won't argue on your other "points", because, quite frankly, life's too short, though it should definitely be noted that Intel at one point offered Apple a custom sku of the ULV Core 2 duo for use in the original MacBook Air (2008). Have a look.

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2420/2

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2445/10

 

Also, TDP != Peak power

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, abazigal said:

He’s not entirely wrong. Just like his earlier video showing how Final Cut Pro runs smoothly on a MacBook, it just proves that Macs are optimised for certain workflows and suck at others. 

 

What he has done here is allow users to make a more informed decision. Which basically boils down to - use a Mac for Final Cut Pro and windows for premiere. Which is a far cry from “the new MacBook sucks at everything just because it sucks at premiere”. 

He’s not wrong. It’s just that while he demonstrated that the Core i9 MBP isn’t a complete dumpster fire, I kinda feel that he could’ve dove a little deeper into why this is even a thing.

 

And I still think the title of the video should’ve been “The Core i9 MacBook Pro isn’t *that* bad”

[D13H4RD]

5 hours ago, Sypran said:

And I can imagine Intel would not want the first thing to come to people's minds when they think of the i9 (in general) is 'overheating'.

It’s already happened twice.

 

This alongside Skylake-X

[goodtofufriday]

https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20

 

@Giiman95  intel has posted a new version now. 3.5.3

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20

 

@Giiman95  intel has posted a new version now. 3.5.3

I would assume bug fixes?

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I won't argue on your other "points", because, quite frankly, life's too short,

Why don't you say that I have a point/am right with those??

Can't admit that Intel is partly at fault too??

 

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

though it should definitely be noted that Intel at one point offered Apple a custom sku of the ULV Core 2 duo for use in the original MacBook Air (2008). Have a look.

That was ~10 Years ago. Do you have anything recently??

And what is custom about that? 

And what's so special about that? The same format was available almost 10 years earlier...

 

Just look at this Link:

http://www.thg.ru/cpu/20000511/print.html

Even at the time it wasn't that rare...

 

And there were already other options at the time:

http://www.x86-guide.com/en/cpu/Intel-A100-cpu-no2910.html

 

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Also, TDP != Peak power

See that is the Problem right now!

 

The CPU consumes on average more than the TDP! 

And THAT is the Problem!

[Stefan Payne]

18 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

kinda feel that he could’ve dove a little deeper into why this is even a thing.

And I still think the title of the video should’ve been “The Core i9 MacBook Pro isn’t *that* bad”

Ähm, no. 

The Problem here is you pay more to get less performance. That is the point and the reason why people are angry.

And if you don't flame the companies responsible for this shit, nothing will change and it will only get worse.

So you have to tell those guys that you don't like that.

 

 

Sadly I doubt that there will be a "fixed version"...

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Ähm, no. 

The Problem here is you pay more to get less performance. That is the point and the reason why people are angry.

And if you don't flame the companies responsible for this shit, nothing will change and it will only get worse.

So you have to tell those guys that you don't like that.

 

 

Sadly I doubt that there will be a "fixed version"...

His video was more to say that the i9 version isn’t exactly worse. It’s still faster than the i7, just not exactly crushingly faster but still faster.

 

My issue is that he didn’t dive deeper into why the i9 has such issues in the first place

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

What that looks like is that this isn't really a 45W TDP Chip and neither hasconfigurable TDP limit like AMD has implemented since Kaveri (just look for cTDP). 

So the CPU runs free and goes way over the TDP until the heatsink is saturated and throttles again.

Intel has configurable TDP, you can even do it on your desktop CPU. Download Intel Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) and have a look at all the options you can configure. You can limit the power for boost as well as standard operating.

 

Here's what it looks like for my much older 4930K but I imagine on newer CPUs there are even more options.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

45W TDP CPU, consomes more than 45W, more like 50-55W, almost 60W, goes over 80W, how can THAT be the fault of Intel??

 

Yeah, I wonder.

Maybe because of the Boostmode, the CPU consuming way more than specified for example....

Look at the core count. Look at the clock speed. Look at the MBP not even managing to sustain the base clock speed. Look at it not TDP throttling. The fault for the MBP's i9 behaving the way it is , is all Apple's.

[S w a t s o n]

All I care about is the new version, has anyone figured out what Intel did?

[Giiman95]

14 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

How is that ironic?

See updated post. 

[Giiman95]

14 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

You gotta edit your post, It doesn't meet the guidelines

Please read updated post. Please comment if something is still non-compliant.

[D13H4RD]

13 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Look at the core count. Look at the clock speed. Look at the MBP not even managing to sustain the base clock speed. Look at it not TDP throttling. The fault for the MBP's i9 behaving the way it is , is all Apple's.

There is one question though.

 

The increased thermal demands of Coffee Lake. Anyone notice the Coffee Lake CPUs in general going over their rated TDP in turbo? I mean, it’s what Intel describes. Just find it interesting that Coffee Lake actually does so while my 7700HQ maintained 33-35W of power draw during Cinebench 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Giiman95 said:

Please read updated post. Please comment if something is still non-compliant.

Members aren't really supposed to post comments like that, supposed to come from moderators. Generally quotes from sources should be put in to the quote formatting that the editor has.

 

Other than that it meets the key requirements, source + quote from source + personal input.

[captain_to_fire]

27 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I would assume bug fixes?

I would assume Intel rigged it as per Jony Ive and Craig Federighi’s request