Yeah so far at least the 2.2 seems to be getting better numbers on Cinebench. Even more so if you run numerous tests one after another so the CPU stays hot.So your 2017 hits 100c at one point? That in a weird sort of way is a bit encouraging. Below's mine and
I seem to be getting better numbers from my 2.2 base model then your 2.6 model
I'm using Macs Fan Control, but even without that, I'm seeing CPU only numbers in the 920 range. It spikes right up at 100c and then starts banging around the 90c range until it recedes back to something more respectable.
View attachment 771714
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
Yes my 2017 i7 do hit 100c in a few instances, but the re-paste have helped keep the turboboost active for longer and giving a more stabile clock frequency which is not so jumpy, also I have a better idle temperature and got a little longer before fans will go crazy.
I think both of the 2018 i7 will see a good improvement in thermals with a change of paste applied with care instead of the bucket apple drops on the die. I do not have high hopes for the i9, of course re-pasting will make it better, but I am afraid it is just to powerful for the heatsink's to handle
I think so too, but I'm not sure I'm willing to do that on a brand new laptop - I've not done that sort of thing in years.
Nor should you need to. I'd also want be 100% certain the warranty would not be voided in the process...
Q-6
It should not be something that we had to do in the first place.
I only did it on my 2017 (albite it being 3 months old) because I have done it a decent amount of times on both MBP's and Windows machine the last year. and I was curious to see how much of an improvement it would give.
Had my 2012 test MBP on for the first time in a while last week, idling at 60c hooked up to a tv (have to be, no screen on it), so I will change the past on that next week just to see if I can get it down a little
I don't know, that sounds crazy. I ran Cinebench on my i9 5 times in a row last night and got numbers consistently in the 920 range.
Ahh - okay then your i9 is still a little bit faster it seems.
I normally get in the upper 800's now (I've run tests and posted them on here before, but for some reason my results have been improving - maybe I was still indexing). A few fluke tests above 900. (even a 971 on my 2.2 in Windows via Boot Camp)
If I turn on a more aggressive fan cycle then those numbers go up a bit more.
It just doesn't make sense that the 2.2 GHz would perform so much better than the i7, but that the i9 with throttling would also perform better.
ShockingMy MBP just got delivered last night, and so I'm setting it up this morning. I have it sitting next to my iMac as I have dropbox sync up and I start installing other apps, when I noticed the temps spiking
View attachment 771691
I just finished installing Macs Fan Control and put the fan speed at 3,000 and for idle activity, the temps have receded to a respectable 42c I know there's some activity behind the scenes with spotlight and what not, but still looking over and seeing such high temps, was (and is) alarming
i7 2.2 will have lowest power draw at max Turbo, i7 2.6 will pull more power and the i9 the most, however the i9 has 12Mb of L3 cache versus 9Mb for the 2.2 & 2.6 which will help the i9 to perform certain tasks faster even under throttling.
Q-6
Last edited:
I don't know why, but they obviously knew about it and they have clearly deliberately chosen to not do even the simple modification to the fan profile. But it's similar with the keyboard. They also knew about that and must have deliberately chosen to not do anything about it for a long time. Maybe one of the circles involves collecting class action law suits?
I keep going back and forth between the base 15" 2.2ghz model and 2.6ghz model upgraded one, given the thermal issues with the higher clock speeds.
Only thing really keeping me from the base model is the 256gb ssd... Once I do BTO with a 512gb ssd I'm at a stones throw away from the 2.6ghz model.
Figures I might as well get the faster internals alongside the SSD and just deal with a bit a of throttling on the rare chance of sustained loads (I plan to use it as a hobby machine to learn iOS dev, occasional video / photo editing, web dev, and maybe a VM to do some xbox streaming).
Getting 512gb might not be super important, though. I feel it's more like a security blanket and if I ever need more storage, I can get an external SSD drive or TB3 drive. Anyone have experience using this solution?
Only thing really keeping me from the base model is the 256gb ssd... Once I do BTO with a 512gb ssd I'm at a stones throw away from the 2.6ghz model.
Figures I might as well get the faster internals alongside the SSD and just deal with a bit a of throttling on the rare chance of sustained loads (I plan to use it as a hobby machine to learn iOS dev, occasional video / photo editing, web dev, and maybe a VM to do some xbox streaming).
Getting 512gb might not be super important, though. I feel it's more like a security blanket and if I ever need more storage, I can get an external SSD drive or TB3 drive. Anyone have experience using this solution?
In my experience go for the 512GB. I rarely use the full 512GB on my machine, but I store a lot on a NAS and in Dropbox, but I definitely go over 256GB occasionally.
[doublepost=1532100986][/doublepost]
Sorry. Meant to say 2.2 GHz i7 vs the 2.6GHz i7.
Sorry for 9 & 12 Mb
Q-6
[doublepost=1532101612][/doublepost]
Ah, now we know why Q6 gets such good benchmark scores!!
And the luck of the silicon lottery
Q-6
For the purposes you've stated, I would say that the 2.6GHz model would be $400 towards specs on a sheet of paper that you'll never use in real life. In my experience as a developer with hundreds of little projects, most small, some large, you'll have lots of space even with the 256GB. And if it's indeed for hobby use, even if you do come close to filling it up, it would be super easy to send some projects to an external archive disk. From there, I guess it depends on just how occasional your photo/video editing would be. If that's the same story, that you only really need to keep one project online at a time and can archive others, then 256GB should again be plenty of space.
If you have infinite money or lack creative ideas for what to do with $400 then go for the 2.6GHz I guess, but I would strongly suspect that you end up paying for features that you never ever see the benefit of.
Personally in my opinion I think that the i7 2.6 is potentially the worst option as it will likely be more power hungry & hotter than the i7 2.2 and lacks the additional cache of the i9.
i7 2.2 you might get lucky as I did with my Asus GL703GS it's 8750H performs spectacularly, potentially just short of being binned as a 8850H or just for quota. Once Intel locked the clocks as a 8750H (4.1GHz/3.8GHz) it's power consumption is very favorable net result it remains to be the 2nd fastest 8750H I've seen documented to date (1273CB)
The i9 although hungrier and hotter has 12Mb of L3 cache versus the 2.2 & 2.6 9Mb which will also come into play.
Q-6
Last edited:
thanks for the straight foward opinion, I was on the edge about the upgrade and reading what you wrote puts me firmly in the “base model” camp. If I ever need more storage, I can get an external drive or just offload some work out of the machine.
thanks again
What does storage size has to do with thermal throttling? I would suppose the effect of size was s negligible?
It doesn't have any effect. Just a factor in a purchasing decision.
I was choosing between the base 2.2ghz and the upgraded 2.6ghz configs and was willing to put up with a bit of throttling (because of higher clock speed) to get the extra storage, but in the end decided against it.