16" MBPro i7 vs i9 heat

[macbookfan21]

Hey everyone!

I'm deciding between MBPro 16 i7 base model with an upgrade of the memory to 1TB, versus getting the higher end i9 model for the 16" MBPro which comes with 1TB already.

I will mainly be using the computer for heavy chrome usage with many tabs, microsoft office, and adobe pdfs. Not using it for gaming, video editing or photo editing or anything like that. I definitely want the larger screen size that the 16" offers.

My question is that does the i9 run hotter than the i7 model? Since I'm not running super heavy stuff, I don't think I really need the full 8 core and power of the i9, but I don't want it to run hot on light tasks. But if it doesn't run hotter idle and still offers more power, I'm not opposed to it.

Is there any instance where getting an i7 16" would be better than i9 16"? I wonder if the i9 will make things faster if at all since it has more cores? I just want a fast laptop since I have the budget for it, but is there a thing where too fast (i9) can be slow if not using it for heavy workloads?

 

[robvas]

If you’re not doing heavy lifting just save the $ and get the i7

 

[macbookfan21]

If you’re not doing heavy lifting just save the $ and get the i7

How about the heat? Do you think i9 would generate more heat than i7?

 

[johannnn]

• i5 runs hotter than i3, i7 runs hotter than i5, i9 runs hotter than i7. This is physics.
• The base 16” is very powerful. I don’t see any reason upgrading it if you’re not gaming, video editing etc.
• Even the base 16” is hot, just take a look at the giant thread about the fan going crazy by just plugging in a 4K monitor.

TLDR: 16” is hot. i9 is hotter. You don’t need to extra CPU speed in the i9. You don’t like heat. Simply put, don’t buy the i9.

 

[macbookfan21]

• i5 runs hotter than i3, i7 runs hotter than i5, i9 runs hotter than i7. This is physics.
• The base 16” is very powerful. I don’t see any reason upgrading it if you’re not gaming, video editing etc.
• Even the base 16” is hot, just take a look at the giant thread about the fan going crazy by just plugging in a 4K monitor.

TLDR: 16” is hot. i9 is hotter. You don’t need to extra CPU speed in the i9. You don’t like heat. Simply put, don’t buy the i9.

Thanks for this summary. Yeah, I actually had an i9 16" before and using it regularly on the monitor fried my logic board from the heat and left me dataless without a laptop. Now leaning towards i7 hoping it will produce less heat. Only reason i really wanted to know is because i know 2018 15" used to have heat issues with i9, but some say with the 16", i9 and i7 somehow produce the same heat bc of better thermal management but I call bs on that.

 

[robvas]

How about the heat? Do you think i9 would generate more heat than i7?

Not under the same load. it’ll be pretty equal.

Fully loaded it will be a little different. Example would be you run a big task that takes 10 minutes to run on the i7. Cpu gets to 95 degrees. Fans come on.

On the i9, the same thing might take 9 minutes. Cpu will get to the same 95 degrees. Fans will still come one. But it will get the job done quicker.

 

[macbookfan21]

Not under the same load. it’ll be pretty equal.

Fully loaded it will be a little different. Example would be you run a big task that takes 10 minutes to run on the i7. Cpu gets to 95 degrees. Fans come on.

On the i9, the same thing might take 9 minutes. Cpu will get to the same 95 degrees. Fans will still come one. But it will get the job done quicker.

With the tasks that I'll be doing, do you think I would see a difference in speed or will this never max out the CPU? I usually have 20ish tabs in chrome, microsoft word, ppt open with multiple docs, adobe pdf reader, and sometimes i watch videos on youtube. I'm just wondering if it would be more cost-effective to just get the i9 model again since it already comes with 1TB.

Do you think I would benefit from having 32gb of ram either now or in the long-run with my tasks?

 

[johannnn]

You definite don’t need 32GB ram if you just have some chrome tabs and some random documents open.

I do bioinformatic analyses of thousands of protein sequences and I only need 16GB.

And i9 is definitely overkill if you just have browser tabs and some documents open.

Btw, the fans will definitely turn on when you play 4K YouTube in chrome on your 16”. I recommend getting http://tbswitcher.rugarciap.com/ (free version exists).

 

[robvas]

Save your money and get thei7/16GB

 

[bill-p]

I got the i7 16" as well just for kicks because I was curious about this as well.

Contrary to belief: i7 is NOT cooler or quieter than i9. This is reality.

What seems to be happening is that the i9 is actually not using all 8 cores all at once with regular tasks (unless I specifically start a workload that use them). So typically, only 4 cores are in use at any time, and the i9 and i7 end up being equal there. It makes sense: you probably don't need more than a quad-core CPU if all you are doing is browsing the web and reading emails.

On workloads that actually try to make use of the remaining cores like compiling code, the 8 cores of the i9 are able to finish within, say... 8 minutes as opposed to 10 minutes on the i7. Under such workloads, both CPUs will try to turbo boost to the maximum power draw allowed, so both actually end up generating the same amount of heat (and cause the same fan noise) anyways. The i9 is just faster. Not significantly, but it's consistently around 20 - 25% faster.

So the i7 went back. I've continued to use the i9 and not looked back at all.

P.S.: I did also test one more thing: disabling turbo boost did allow the i7 to draw about 10W less power than the i9 under max load, but performance suffered pretty significantly. On both CPUs, the drop was about 35 - 40% for heavy sustained load with turbo boost disabled. Both still maxed out the fans, so temps were a bit lower on the i7, but fans were just as noisy. And even then, under light load, it makes no difference whatsoever. Both CPUs seem to turn off unused cores so neither was drawing significant power under light load anyways. Disabling turbo wasn't worth it to me at all.

 

[macbookfan21]

I got the i7 16" as well just for kicks because I was curious about this as well.

Contrary to belief: i7 is NOT cooler or quieter than i9. This is reality.

What seems to be happening is that the i9 is actually not using all 8 cores all at once with regular tasks (unless I specifically start a workload that use them). So typically, only 4 cores are in use at any time, and the i9 and i7 end up being equal there. It makes sense: you probably don't need more than a quad-core CPU if all you are doing is browsing the web and reading emails.

On workloads that actually try to make use of the remaining cores like compiling code, the 8 cores of the i9 are able to finish within, say... 8 minutes as opposed to 10 minutes on the i7. Under such workloads, both CPUs will try to turbo boost to the maximum power draw allowed, so both actually end up generating the same amount of heat (and cause the same fan noise) anyways. The i9 is just faster. Not significantly, but it's consistently around 20 - 25% faster.

So the i7 went back. I've continued to use the i9 and not looked back at all.

P.S.: I did also test one more thing: disabling turbo boost did allow the i7 to draw about 10W less power than the i9 under max load, but performance suffered pretty significantly. On both CPUs, the drop was about 35 - 40% for heavy sustained load with turbo boost disabled. Both still maxed out the fans, so temps were a bit lower on the i7, but fans were just as noisy. And even then, under light load, it makes no difference whatsoever. Both CPUs seem to turn off unused cores so neither was drawing significant power under light load anyways. Disabling turbo wasn't worth it to me at all.

Interesting, thanks for commenting on your observations. With only a $200 difference, its tempting to get the i9 especilly if it doesnt heat up as much as the i7. With the tasks that I'll be doing do you think itll make any difference at all ( I will mainly be using the computer for heavy chrome usage with many tabs, microsoft office, and adobe pdfs.)?

 

[bill-p]

So... from what I can see, the i9 is just faster in some cases. Both i7 and i9 generate about the same amount of heat and fan noise. There is not much of a difference when it comes to heat... if that's your main concern.

And I'd avoid Chrome unless you can't help it.

 

[thekev]

Thanks for this summary. Yeah, I actually had an i9 16" before and using it regularly on the monitor fried my logic board from the heat and left me dataless without a laptop. Now leaning towards i7 hoping it will produce less heat. Only reason i really wanted to know is because i know 2018 15" used to have heat issues with i9, but some say with the 16", i9 and i7 somehow produce the same heat bc of better thermal management but I call bs on that.

It goes without saying, but you need to actually back up your data. If the heat is in fact frying your board (as in it's a real and not just a perceived cause), you probably need an entirely different model, not just a step down in processors.

 

[macbookfan21]

It goes without saying, but you need to actually back up your data. If the heat is in fact frying your board (as in it's a real and not just a perceived cause), you probably need an entirely different model, not just a step down in processors.

I need the power of a 16" model, getting 13" high end fully loaded model right now doesn't seem worth it esp if they upgrade to ARM soon.. What do you suggest? I want to think that maybe it was just a defective computer, but the laptop would get hot consecutively with monitor use everytime.

 

[thekev]

I need the power of a 16" model, getting 13" high end fully loaded model right now doesn't seem worth it esp if they upgrade to ARM soon.. What do you suggest? I want to think that maybe it was just a defective computer, but the laptop would get hot consecutively with monitor use everytime.

Yeah, just saying if one of them actually became consistently hot enough to completely destroy a board, I'm skeptical as to whether a change in models would be enough to solve that problem. It's hard to determine whether that was the primary or at least a significant factor in the underlying failure, even though it was the perceived cause. If it was the primary factor, I'm wondering whether your problem could be solved by a change in processor model. You could easily encounter the exact same problem.

I'm also skeptical how much cooler ARM will be. Apple runs things to pretty tight thermal envelopes. If something is running cool at max cpu/gpu load, they may use that to relax other design restrictions.