Tests Confirm Apple's Throttling Fix Improves Performance for 2018 MacBook Pro Models

[PlayStation 2]

Better late than ignored.

[D13H4RD]

Welp, I know what I should suggest Linus do. 

 

 

[sof006]

Performance improves however temps are still really bad. I bet these things fail very fast.

[-rascal-]

1 hour ago, sof006 said:

Performance improves however temps are still really bad. I bet these things fail very fast.

 

Agreed.

91*C ~ 100*C heat source in a confined space.

Not going to be optimal for the other electrical components beside/near it, even if they're rated of 105*C or 125*C.

[DrMacintosh]

4 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Apple "fix" is not a fix.

The problem was widely fluctuating clock speeds, this firmware update now allows the CPU to maintain more constant clocks. 

 

It is by definition a fix. 

[DrMacintosh]

55 minutes ago, Tedny said:

7k laptop

Nice straw man fallacy. 

[Morgan Everett]

4 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes, it improves... but the CPU is nearly always on its base clock, and therefore other systems with Core i9 performs better.

The reality is that Apple went cheap, they didn't want to make a special larger heatsink solution of the i9, but then the price of  the system is sold as if they have done such. That is the issue.

 

Apple "fix" is not a fix.

 

The problem has been fixed, from what I've seen. Obviously, if there were a better cooling solution, performance would improve still further. But every manufacturer balances thermals against design. In Apple's case, they've prioritised the latter. 

[sof006]

2 hours ago, -rascal- said:

 

Agreed.

91*C ~ 100*C heat source in a confined space.

Not going to be optimal for the other electrical components beside/near it, even if they're rated of 105*C or 125*C.

Exactly, just because they can doesn't mean they should.

[RedRound2]

5 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

They did skimp on it precisely because of the machine's size. 

 

Had it not been made so thin, there's a good chance a beefier cooler could be added that also cools the VRMs. It doesn't have to be mega huge but I'd probably say right between the size of the 2008-2012 and 2012-2015 MBPs

 

It won't turbo all the way to 4.3GHz on all cores but it might be able to turbo a little longer, even at all 

 

5 hours ago, cj09beira said:

they are forcing it with bad design, is it, dont make me laugh 

 

4 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

They did skimp on the heatsink size because it's more like Apple would rather sacrifice function for form by forcing a CPU into a chassis that isn't adequate enough to handle an i9 that can run according to Intel's specs.

There isn't much excuse for it getting past engineering and testing other than Apple thinking they could sell it because most of their consumers don't know any better,aside from more cores and Ghz must be better, so why not pay extra over the i7 model. Apple claiming "whoops we forgot to add this magical software key" and people believe it's a fix despite it can't turbo much at all now. To be fair the Dell XPS does throttle to an extent, but nowhere nearly as bad as this dud of a laptop.

 

4 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Your comment literally says they skimped. They should of never included the i9

How have you guys not read the latter half of my comment *faceplam

By skimp I meant, they didn't cheap out for a smaller one in the existing chassis, they can't fix a bigger one if they wanted to

5 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

They didn’t skimp on heatsink size. If you take a look at the internals they can’t physically fit a larger heatsink or squeeze in a larger fan. Any improvements in cooling would’ve required increased thickness which Apple has never believed in and will most definitely not roll back to the older rMBP dimensions just for a chillier i9.

 

Also, i9 will thermal throttle just the way it did here in any similarly sized notebooks like the XPS. Apple would rather force the technology to evolve into their vision than actually wait for the technology to catch up and that has always been the case

 

[RedRound2]

4 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

So then don't put a chip that the system can't cool properly.

You don't see Surface Pro with a GTX 1080 and a Core i9 for a reason.

They haven't refreshed it yet I believe . And no, the thermals would be far worse than the borderline it on the a thin and light clamshell

Quote

And seeing how Microsoft was able to add a beefier heat sink solution to the Surface Pro while not increase the device size, or make it thicker, and still has all its original ports, and longer battery life, shows what some engineering magic can do, clearly Apple was not interested in.

Umm excuse me, but the Surface Pro has a 15W processor while the MBP has a 45W processor and a dedicated GPU. And the surface is much thicker and heavier than the MacBook 2015, which is what you should be comparing to. They force functionality in the form they want and there's literally nothing surprising about Apple when it comes to this.

[Sniperfox47]

6 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The problem was widely fluctuating clock speeds, this firmware update now allows the CPU to maintain more constant clocks. 

 

It is by definition a fix. 

It does *somewhat* fix the VRM instability.

 

It does *not* fix that overheating issues on the CPU itself.

 

It does *not* fix that the VRMs are still ineffectively cooled, and are likely to damage other board components around them.

 

It does *not* fix the cooler that is woefully inadequate for the CPU alone, much less the CPU+GPU.

 

It does *not* change the fact that the CPU is still performing below minimum spec, except now it's because of an underclock/undervolt instead of overheating components.

 

To see a comparison where a company handles this properly see the EVGA VRM issues on their 10 series cards that they got bitched out for. What happened after? They immediately offered parts for you to install yourself or a return repair program if you weren't comfortable doing it yourself, and then shortly after released new cards with the cooling improvements from the fix, as well as a redesigned cooler and more thermal sensors to better deal with these issues in the future.

 

That only happened because EVGA got held to task, and the Apple community never seems to do that with their benevolent dictators.

 

4 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

 

 

 

How have you guys not read the latter half of my comment *faceplam

By skimp I meant, they didn't cheap out for a smaller one in the existing chassis, they can't fix a bigger one if they wanted to

 

So then 2 simple solutions...

A) Make a bigger chassis

or

B) Don't include this CPU that wasn't designed for the form factor you're targeting

 

As mentioned above you don't see Microsoft trying to cram an HQ processor into the Surface Pro. The CPU sku is *not* designed for that form factor.

 

4 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

They force functionality in the form they want and there's literally nothing surprising about Apple when it comes to this.

Unsurprising does not equal acceptable. At some point users need to start accepting the fact that Apple has crap engineering and hold them to task for this. This is the kind of thing users would be outraged about on a $300 crappy Acer, so why is it okay with Apple on a machine you're paying $7000 for?

[D13H4RD]

26 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

so why is it okay with Apple on a machine you're paying $7000 for?

It's actually more like $3000+++

 

The $6000+++ price comes from the specced out SKU with 4TB of storage. 

 

Doesn't make it any less unacceptable. Just pointing out that just opting the i9 8950HK adds $300-$400 to the base price (i7 8850H and i7 8750H models respectively), which brings it into the $3K mark 

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

It's actually more like $3000+++

 

The $6000+++ price comes from the specced out SKU with 4TB of storage 

So many Straw men get built when trying to talk bad about the MBPs

[D13H4RD]

You already know my take. But here's a recap. 

 

Apple's solution doesn't fix the core problem per se, and that is a CPU that runs hot (especially at turbo frequencies) and VRMs that are very close to being maxed out due to inadequate cooling as a result of the cooling system being basically unchanged (more of a cooking system at this point). You can see the CPU still going in that 92 degree mark during heavy workloads. 

 

But it alleviated one big issue that's been a concern and that's the wild fluctuations in clockspeed. Post-patch, it's much more stable and there aren't that many wild fluctuations during constant heavy loads. 

 

I highly doubt the CPU can turbo due to it already hitting really close to TJ Max (and there's no chance when the GPU is fired up) and Apple's design is already pretty much at the limit so the actual fix is a redesign, which won't come until at least after 2 years. 

 

But it's something at least. I'll still probably pick the i7 8850H variant though. I still think i9s should be reserved for big thicc boi machines. 

 

[Dylanc1500]

26 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

You already know my take. But here's a recap. 

 

Apple's solution doesn't fix the core problem per se, and that is a CPU that runs hot (especially at turbo frequencies) and VRMs that are very close to being maxed out due to inadequate cooling as a result of the cooling system being basically unchanged (more of a cooking system at this point). You can see the CPU still going in that 92 degree mark during heavy workloads. 

 

But it alleviated one big issue that's been a concern and that's the wild fluctuations in clockspeed. Post-patch, it's much more stable and there aren't that many wild fluctuations during constant heavy loads. 

 

I highly doubt the CPU can turbo due to it already hitting really close to TJ Max (and there's no chance when the GPU is fired up) and Apple's design is already pretty much at the limit so the actual fix is a redesign, which won't come until at least after 2 years. 

 

But it's something at least. I'll still probably pick the i7 8850H variant though. I still think i9s should be reserved for big thicc boi machines. 

 

They honestly don't even need to be all that thick. There are machines out that are only a 1/4" thicker and don't have thermal issues like this. 

[D13H4RD]

Just now, Dylanc1500 said:

They honestly don't even need to be all that thick. There are machines out that are only a 1/4" thicker and don't have thermal issues like this. 

It does not have to be ASUS G703 massive. 

 

Even the form factor of the 2008-2012 MacBook Pros should do okay 

[Dylanc1500]

5 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

It does not have to be ASUS G703 massive. 

 

Even the form factor of the 2008-2012 MacBook Pros should do okay 

The HP ZBook and the Dell Precision don't have the issues. Take into account they are 1" and 1.2" respectively.

 

I honestly don't know how thick the MacBooks, then, were.

[D13H4RD]

Just now, Dylanc1500 said:

The HP ZBook and the Dell Precision don't have the issues. Take into account they are 1" and 1.2" respectively.

 

I honestly don't know how thick they were.

Probs thicker? 

 

Business laptops aren't focused on thinness. More on durability. 

[Dylanc1500]

1 hour ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Probs thicker? 

 

Business laptops aren't focused on thinness. More on durability. 

They are, but not by much. Like I said, the ZBook is 1" and the Precision is 1.2". The MacBook Pro is .61" thick. That's only .39" thinner than the ZBook.

 

Also they aren't just buisness laptops, they are full on mobile workstations with professionals in mind.

 

I think we are saying the same thing? I was just pointing out that they are that much thicker and don't have the same thermal issues as the MacBook Pro, without being much thicker.

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

It's actually more like $3000+++

 

The $6000+++ price comes from the specced out SKU with 4TB of storage. 

 

Doesn't make it any less unacceptable. Just pointing out that just opting the i9 8950HK adds $300-$400 to the base price (i7 8850H and i7 8750H models respectively), which brings it into the $3K mark 

 

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

So many Straw men get built when trying to talk bad about the MBPs

It's not exactly a strawman when I can gauruntee you there *are* users out there buying the fully specced out build and those users *are* having these exact same problems.

 

Stuff like this isn't acceptable on a $100 HP stream. It's not acceptable on a $300 Acer Aspire. It's not acceptable on a $1000 MacBook Air. It's not acceptable on an i9 MacBook whether regardless of the price it comes in at.

 

 

[Ashleyyyy]

16 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Yeah mine still runs great after 10 years of 100C almost everyday

i use an app to set my own fan curve. i can keep mine below 60 with normal use. 

 

i have a Late 2011 15"... 

[Loliplol]

MacBook's VRMs are not delivering enough power to drive the CPU. Apple states that it's fixable with a software update, but that is BS. Saying that a HARDWARE problem is fixable with a software update is the same as me upgrading my car's firmware for it to run like a Porsche. Either recall every MacBook and change the VRMs or just admit that you fucked it up instead of making up "solutions" due to "unexpected workload". Like Rossmann says, if they just edited the MacBook commercial on a MacBook, they would have noticed the mistake. But it was probably made on a Windows machine

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

I think we are saying the same thing? I was just pointing out that they are that much thicker and don't have the same thermal issues as the MacBook Pro, without being much thicker.

We did

 

I find this whole race to be thinner pretty ridiculous. In exchange for that, we had keyboards that became useless after just a few specks of dust (that needed a membrane to help 2 years after it was introduced) and CPUs that ran too hot.

 

Just make it 1". I doubt many would even notice the difference.

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, Loliplol said:

MacBook's VRMs are not delivering enough power to drive the CPU. Apple states that it's fixable with a software update, but that is BS. Saying that a HARDWARE problem is fixable with a software update is the same as me upgrading my car's firmware for it to run like a Porsche. Either recall every MacBook and change the VRMs or just admit that you fucked it up instead of making up "solutions" due to "unexpected workload". Like Rossmann says, if they just edited the MacBook commercial on a MacBook, they would have noticed the mistake. But it was probably made on a Windows machine

I mean they *did* fix the VRM stability issues in software. They just did it by limiting the hardware below the point where it got unstable >.>

 

So they fixed a problem by introducing another smaller problem.

[Loliplol]

8 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I mean they *did* fix the VRM stability issues in software. They just did it by limiting the hardware below the point where it got unstable >.>

 

So they fixed a problem by introducing another smaller problem.

So basically what they did is limit the CPU so it can't draw enough power for itself and change the OS to show that it's using its full potential, while it's not because they limited it. Does that mean that it performs exactly like the 13 inch i7 model? Since I bet they used the same VRM-s on both machines.