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

[TVwazhere]

I see both sides of the argument, but dont care about which side is right. I'm just enjoying the "discussion"

 

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

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.

I'd very much so not want it to be 1". There is a very noticeable difference between the unibody MBP (.95") and the OG retina (.71"). The old retina was fine (and is what I have now and likely will continue to use for the next 5+ years), although I'd still take the thinner and lighter 2016 and later design.

[D13H4RD]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'd very much so not want it to be 1". There is a very noticeable difference between the unibody MBP (.95") and the OG retina (.71"). The old retina was fine (and is what I have now and likely will continue to use for the next 5+ years), although I'd still take the thinner and lighter 2016 and later design.

That's why I wouldn't be opposed to a variant of a MacBook that was suitably powerful but also in the form-factor of an ultrabook. It doesn't have to be super-high end but fits a middle-ground between a MacBook/MacBook Air and MacBook Pro.

 

IMO, I think the Pros should be focused more on power and not worry too much about size (though let's not make it too big).

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, Loliplol said:

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.

Not quite. It just has a 100MHz lowered base clock, is undervolted, and doesn't turbo as hard. No changes to the OS, and no lying about CPU usage or anything. I mean it *did* fix the stability issue which is good. It now actually outperforms the i7 version in most tasks like it should, just not by the margin it should.

 

It just still doesn't perform to even the standard base clock speeds of that chip though, much less a reasonably expectable amount of turbo.

[Loliplol]

5 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Not quite. It just has a 100MHz lowered base clock, is undervolted, and doesn't turbo as hard. No changes to the OS, and no lying about CPU usage or anything. I mean it *did* fix the stability issue which is good. It now actually outperforms the i7 version in most tasks like it should, just not by the margin it should.

 

It just still doesn't perform to even the standard base clock speeds of that chip though, much less a reasonably expectable amount of turbo.

So what they did is: They put a really nice CPU inside that laptop which I liked. They screwed up everything else related to the CPU because the MOBO doesn't deliver enough power (VRM-s to be exact) and now they lowered its performance, lowered the promised super huge turbo clock speeds and is still throttling the VRM-s when under full load.

 

Good job Apple, $3k dollar machine with the capability of being great, but due to its manufacturer is shit.

[RedRound2]

10 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

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

They won't roll backwards in design. That's not something Apple would ever do. And IMO that isn't very inspiring

and b, it's pretty clear from all the benchmarks and real world tests that the i9 is faster than i7 and Apple is providing you with an option to choose. Don't want i9, go ahead, get the i7 and save a few bucks in the process

Quote

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.

So what should we do here? Blame Intel for making shitty processors? You need performance, we have to use HQ processors. But no one likes to carry around a tank also. Apple has the best of both, atleast (Im taking this number out of my ass) 75-80% performance of the HQ processors in a thin and light. 

Quote

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?

I don't get what point you are trying to make here. One hand you say Apple shouldn't include i9, when clearly it has a performance advantage over i7. Sure, it does run toasty, but that's only in sustained workload and that's what is possible with today's tech. Apple could make a bigger chassis design that doesn't throttle at all, but no one likes big chunky laptops with shitty batteries. They aren't going to make the new MBP slightly thicker as it would seem like a roll back in Apple's design philosophy and not have a seperate design SKU for the i9 version

 

And it costs 3K. Don't try to win an argument by bringing up the 7K price tag when clearly you can get the same performance laptop with 2TB storage for 3K

[randomhkkid]

Glad to see that they have been able to bring performance in line with other similar laptops (XPS 15) in terms of sustained performance. Unfortunately I think a lot of manufacterers were caught unguarded to the delays of 10nm meaning that thermals are suffering across the board.

[79wjd]

24 minutes ago, randomhkkid said:

Glad to see that they have been able to bring performance in line with other similar laptops (XPS 15) in terms of sustained performance. Unfortunately I think a lot of manufacterers were caught unguarded to the delays of 10nm meaning that thermals are suffering across the board.

I wonder what things would look like if manufacturers were using the more efficient Ryzen -- Apple obviously couldn't do that because final cut would lose its major quicksync advantage, but everyone else could.

[vanished]

Wow, that's a remarkable change.  Almost impossible to believe that was just a software/firmware change but I guess those are the facts.  Good to see they've (potentially) dug themselves out of the hole on this one but it does make you wonder how they didn't notice and fix this until after launch.

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

I wonder what things would look like if manufacturers were using the more efficient Ryzen

You can take a look at the GL702ZC. So far, that's the only laptop with a higher-end Ryzen CPU although that one had a literal desktop chip.

 

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Wow, that's a remarkable change.  Almost impossible to believe that was just a software/firmware change but I guess those are the facts.  Good to see they've (potentially) dug themselves out of the hole on this one but it does make you wonder how they didn't notice and fix this until after launch.

It's likely to do with changes to either the scheduler or power-management stuff, which would make sense when you see that the clockspeeds and package power graphs are significantly steadier.

[jagdtigger]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

changes to either the scheduler or power-management stuff

Look at the clock speed, it tops out at 2,9 GHz. The lazy bastards just gone ahead and disabled turbo boost...

[D13H4RD]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Look at the clock speed, it tops out at 2,9 GHz. The lazy bastards just gone ahead and disabled turbo boost...

Anyone tried with burst loads?

[vanished]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Look at the clock speed, it tops out at 2,9 GHz. The lazy bastards just gone ahead and disabled turbo boost...

Looks to be hovering around 4 to me...

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Looks to be hovering around 4 to me...

 

[Blademaster91]

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

They won't roll backwards in design. That's not something Apple would ever do. And IMO that isn't very inspiring

and b, it's pretty clear from all the benchmarks and real world tests that the i9 is faster than i7 and Apple is providing you with an option to choose. Don't want i9, go ahead, get the i7 and save a few bucks in the process

So what should we do here? Blame Intel for making shitty processors? You need performance, we have to use HQ processors. But no one likes to carry around a tank also. Apple has the best of both, atleast (Im taking this number out of my ass) 75-80% performance of the HQ processors in a thin and light. 

I don't get what point you are trying to make here. One hand you say Apple shouldn't include i9, when clearly it has a performance advantage over i7. Sure, it does run toasty, but that's only in sustained workload and that's what is possible with today's tech. Apple could make a bigger chassis design that doesn't throttle at all, but no one likes big chunky laptops with shitty batteries. They aren't going to make the new MBP slightly thicker as it would seem like a roll back in Apple's design philosophy and not have a seperate design SKU for the i9 version

 

And it costs 3K. Don't try to win an argument by bringing up the 7K price tag when clearly you can get the same performance laptop with 2TB storage for 3K

Ok,now you're just trying to strawman here. What is so "inspiring" about obsessing over a laptop when it runs so hot it cooks itself? And,LOL, even going back to a design such as the 2015 MBP wouldn't mean "shitty batteries" it would mean they could actually fit more batteries into the laptop also maybe adding some standard I/O so you don't have to carry a bunch of dongles to get work done. But I get how stubborn Apple is with their design, years later they still won't admit things like their badly designed keyboards.

Except people that *need* the i9 are going to buy the i9,opting for the 7K option with 4TB of storage isn't that unlikely when they may need that storage,Apple is marketing this as a professional workstation.

The point still stands this is unacceptable for a 3K laptop,some software fix still doesn't change that the CPU still doesn't have enough cooling alone,the VRM's are still more than likely run so hot they would be more prone to failing, and the cooling still can't handle a CPU+GPU load. It is just sad people are still defending a company that shouldn't have crammed in a HQ processor while cheaping out using the same chassis and cooler as the i7 and carrying a premium price tag over the i7 model.

[D13H4RD]

12 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Apple could make a bigger chassis design that doesn't throttle at all, but no one likes big chunky laptops with shitty batteries. 

They don't have to. 

 

The thickness of the 2008-2012 MacBook Pro is just fine for that application. You don't need to have a giant behemoth for an i9 8950HK unless you need it to sustain turbo clocks (which due to its high cTDP runaway, produces significantly more heat). 

 

I know at least one person who prefers the current form factor, which was why I felt it was better to have a MacBook variant that had a balance of power and portability and then have a MacBook Pro be focused on power and not much else while being relatively portable. 

 

I would not at all be opposed to a 17" MacBook Pro that would be around 0.8"-1" thick while packing in high end components and a beefy cooling system while also having that excellent display and other stuff (and a normal keyboard and function row).

 

Also, the 8950 is an HK, not an HQ. Just saying. 

[RedRound2]

17 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Ok,now you're just trying to strawman here. What is so "inspiring" about obsessing over a laptop when it runs so hot it cooks itself?

Apple laptops have always had 90-100 degree temps. There's literally nothing new here. And incidentally, Apple laptops are also the laptops that tend to last the longest, due to different reasons of course

Quote

And,LOL, even going back to a design such as the 2015 MBP wouldn't mean "shitty batteries" it would mean they could actually fit more batteries into the laptop also maybe adding some standard I/O so you don't have to carry a bunch of dongles to get work done. But I get how stubborn Apple is with their design, years later they still won't admit things like their badly designed keyboards.

10 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

The thickness of the 2008-2012 MacBook Pro is just fine for that application. You don't need to have a giant behemoth for an i9 8950HK unless you need it to sustain turbo clocks (which due to its high cTDP runaway, produces significantly more heat). 

Why would they go back to an older design. They won't do that, in fact no companies will. Does it have it's advantages, yes, but that realistically never happens in the industry. Also is there any real evidence that the cooler in the older macbook was better? I think it's more or less the same.

 

Again, i think this is a good idea, but it just will not happen.

 

About the keyboard. Yeah that was idiotic. Thet should've been the second test after the typing test. But they did admit it. They have a recall program and they fixed it in the 3rd gen. They won't officially say it because that'll lead to a lot of lawsuits and refund requests. Anyway, they're paying the price for by trying to repair a virtually unrepairable laptop

Quote

Except people that *need* the i9 are going to buy the i9,opting for the 7K option with 4TB of storage isn't that unlikely when they may need that storage,Apple is marketing this as a professional workstation.

No other company has an option of 4TB SSD in their devices. It's just an option. Even MKBHD said he could easily get away with 2TB but he bought it just because he could. And most professionals do use some sort of backup and external devices and anyone with a peanut brain will know that 2TB option with a much much much higher capacity external drives can be obtained for the $3200 upgrade 

Quote

The point still stands this is unacceptable for a 3K laptop,some software fix still doesn't change that the CPU still doesn't have enough cooling alone,the VRM's are still more than likely run so hot they would be more prone to failing, and the cooling still can't handle a CPU+GPU load. It is just sad people are still defending a company that shouldn't have crammed in a HQ processor while cheaping out using the same chassis and cooler as the i7 and carrying a premium price tag over the i7 model.

Does it have shitty cooling. It does. There's no denying it. But it performs as well as similarly equipped i9 than and lights and it is much faster than windows when you bring in software and final cut. Could they have potentially made it better, yes they could have. But achieving that would go against Apple's sleekness principle that is questionable, but something we all know. 

Quote

Also, the 8950 is an HK, not an HQ. Just saying. 

Whoops, my bad.