Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2018 i7 MacBook Pro throttling discussion.
- Thread starter iamMacPerson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Problem is that they can’t even consistenty stay at their max turbo let alone 4ghz.
Yeah but in a laptop like this it's not really reaching the 4.3ghz right? So that would negate the differences in performance. Same pretty much goes for the i9 I guess except for the cache size difference.
What kind of apps would benefit from the differences in cache size? It seems like if you fall out of that category there would be no reason to go for anything higher than the 2.2Ghz (that is, if everything I said above is true).
But thats never been the purpose of turboboost. Turboboost gives a short burst of performance so everytime you load an application or click around in the ui of load a website it will hit that Max turbo to do this as quickly as possible. Turboboost was never intended to be used for very long periods of time. The cpu changes frequency even more offem then you see in the power gadget i’m pretty sure the 2.6ghz will hit that 4.3ghz for short bursts and i’m also pretty sure the 2.6 will be quicker for most tasks even if not by much
2.6 i7. I kicked the fans into high gear before running the tests. Results on Cinebench: 1043, 1044, 963, 967, 965. The first two tests it was able to maintain a pretty stable Turbo Boost to 3.2GHz, on the last runs it was still stable albeit at 3GHz. Much better now as my worst test this run is still better than the best test before the patch.
Wow, great update. Got the base model, 2.2. 1010 score first run. about 950-980 score the next 5 runs
Think we might need a larger sample set and test suite. Lol.
[doublepost=1532462260][/doublepost]FWIW Fortnite plays well now too!
Well its only £80 difference (if you want the same spec like I did but dont want to wait 2 weeks for a BTO) its not like the £270/£350 they want for the i9 upgrade, I'm happy with the minor performance over the 2.2 for the cost
In something like 3D rendering the two i7s and the i9 should perform similarly as the clock speed across all cores will be similar and controlled by the chassis design.
In real world mixed work loads you will see the difference between the three.
[doublepost=1532463033][/doublepost]
Nice. Good to see everyone happy with their 10-15% boost and comfortable temps.
We are in a global heatwave atm so unless you have good air con your laptops will easily heat up and throttle.
We wait for the Mac Pro redesign. Just needs to be a half size Quicksilver in Space Gray.
Uh, it’s looking like on this benchmark at least that all of the machines perform similarly. Which isn’t the best news for i9 owners.
Here's my 2.2 Cinebench results
temps still hit 100, so I'm not too happy with regard to running this cooler, but it is certainly faster.
Would any of the 2.6ghz owners (32gb or 16gb) mind chiming in with their CPU temperature at idle with no apps running?
Mine seems excessively hot at 60 degrees celsius with just the Intel Power Gadget running. My 2013 13" i5 MBP is 38 degrees celsius at idle.
Is my computer bad? Thermal paste wrong?
It's in an air conditioned office.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry to interrupt the benchmark posts.
Mine seems excessively hot at 60 degrees celsius with just the Intel Power Gadget running. My 2013 13" i5 MBP is 38 degrees celsius at idle.
Is my computer bad? Thermal paste wrong?
It's in an air conditioned office.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry to interrupt the benchmark posts.
I ran three CB tests in a row after the update on my 2.2. I got a 1063, 993, and 958. Maintained at least 3.0ghz at all times.
Would've run more tests, but the temps were then stable at about 97C during the last test (no longer climbing) so I assume it would stay around 960 long term.
Edit: Note that these tests were performed in a rather warm and stuffy room. I came home from work early today, so my thermostat didn't have it cooled off in here before I arrived like normal.
Would've run more tests, but the temps were then stable at about 97C during the last test (no longer climbing) so I assume it would stay around 960 long term.
Edit: Note that these tests were performed in a rather warm and stuffy room. I came home from work early today, so my thermostat didn't have it cooled off in here before I arrived like normal.
Last edited:
Sorry for the cross-posting guys, but there are so many threads 
i9 Results...
i9 Results...
AC is required to live here in Phoenix lol. As for the new Mac Pro, I’m curious to see the price and how ‘modular’ it will actually be. The 2013 design was terrible. I had never before had a desktop who’s video cards killed themselves but somehow Apple found a way. My 4,1 cheesegrater is still kicking ass and taking names.