The level of throttling might get slightly reduced (say to Dell XPS levels) but it's unlikely to get "fixed". That's just how physics works.
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.
Apple Says 2018 MacBook Pro Throttling is a Bug, Fix Available Now in New macOS Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is what we call a unicorn. A few mm thicker would not make a substantial difference, thicker with additional heatsink and fans might allow you to go slightly higher on the turbo at full load... but not significantly. You are talking about a CPU that is 45Watts TDP at 2.9 in office conditions ambient temperature. Turbo up and can take it up to 80 watts (consumption by the CPU), you have a GPU that at full load be more than 60watts, you have the DDR4 (potentially 32GB) which consumes electricity and produces heat, you have SSD, T2, motherboard chipset... (80 watts TDP is probably a midrange desktop CPU). So operating above rated TDP at full load (in turbo mode) would require something on the order of a 150 to 180 watt power supply - much larger and much bulkier by itself than an 87-watt laptop power supply. This is why when you talk about something like what Dave2D calls the i9 done right you end up with something like the Helios 500 transportable/luggable -- and it has only 45 minutes to 3 hours (3 hours browsing type usage) of battery (batteries are limited in size - or they cannot be brought on an airplane).
Laptops or transportable/luggables all have compromises. The laptop that Apple makes compromises in absolute top end performance - with the balance being on lighter and less noisy. It is something that won't be too much of a burden if you have to carry it around with you often.
Helios compromises on everything else - i.e. size (4kg + a very hefty power supply), size (the laptop and power supply together are extremely bulky), sound and virtually a battery that acts as a short-term UPS rather than a battery that is useful for doing work. And even with all that when it comes to video/audio professionals that work day in and day out on video production - would be best served by a pro desktop -- not a laptop (considerably more expensive and more powerful).
Personally, I think Apple is better at hitting the right spot in the market for most. In fact the most professional machines on the Windows side tend to aim closer to Apple than the Helios.
As someone that was a road warrior for many years... heavy laptops can have a detrimental effect on your body. Having a heavy laptop slung over your shoulder for day in day out... not good... the lighter the better. Back in the day when the laptops and kit/bag were heavier... all you wanted to do was to get from point A to B and throw down your bag... but often that was just not possible... you had to carry it with you ... especially if you have confidential information on your device.
Last edited:
Because most people that buy Apple hardware can't think much further than the advertisement they read that says its fast.
What is making full use of a CPU in a laptop? Is it the same as a desktop not making full use of a CPU because there is no water cooling solution and therefore it does not make the 'most out of a CPU'? I would argue that if a CPU is able to run at the base clock with all cores running is within the 'making full use out of a CPU'. Understand though that because Intel has had problems with the process shrink that the definition of TDP has changed. It used to be that when they talked about 45 TDP it would be the maximum normal heat. It now has changed and the i9 CPU can when in turbo mode go up to 80+ TDP watts... this is really mid-desktop TDP range. Also understand that if software takes advantage of AVX instructions (use to be Xeon only, now in high-end desktop CPUs)... that the CPU is not even designed to run at base clock apparently. Of course, using AVX instructions where they are useful (which 'causes the CPU to lower clock speed considerably') will still provide more performance than executing the same without AVX at full or turbo clock speed.
In the end, it is about buying the right solution for your workflow/usage. Many people buy computers and have the CPU run idle 80% to 90% pretty well across the board... but they bought more powerful computers than they needed just because the specs looked better.
Last edited:
Because it still runs better than the slower 2.6 model or the quad-cores?
It's not like any macbooks made "full use" of CPUs, the level of throttling happening now its pretty much on par with macbooks in the last 6 years. Nobody expected MacBook Pros to suddenly gain incredible thermal efficiency, just that it works properly, which it does now.
Of course it wont get "fixed", because its designed to throttle and has been since turbo boost CPUs.
The problem was not that it cannot maintain 6-core turbo boost, the problem was it couldnt maintain base clocks without VRMs overheating.
My garden is not walled, it’s well protected, nourished, watered & kept in blossom by the best gardeners in the world. If there’s a weed, they wack it. If there’s a bad bug, they squash it. Everytime I walk in my garden I’m in awe of its palette & synchronicity.
I’ve seen the neighbours garden, and I am far less impressed. Sure there are way more flowers in the garden, but its formation is a mess & the lack of a fence just allows any dog to piss in it, weed to penetrate it & makes it harder to maintain.
Though yeah, I am probably going off topic myself.
Nice little poem
. iOS devices are walled, Mac devices are not. If it was it would be a pretty bad wall since I can install any old 3rd party app designed by any 3rd party to run on it... no different than Windows (Windows S-Mode is actually a walled garden, but because the shed was empty - they allow you to take down the wall... for a fee (temporarily free until people aren't looking).
The software I use uses all the cores. All cores show up as an individual render bucket.
[doublepost=1532970623][/doublepost]
And again you obviously don't know much about software QC. Many people had no problem, none of our test machines had the throttling problem. It didn't happen for everyone so Apple did what any dev would do and reached out to see how to replicate the issue.
You are not very good at guessing regarding my knowledge, but that’s just the internet right ? Under heavy usage of all cores, there can be no cases where it throttles “sometimes”. A machine can either have or have not a problem with throttling. This is not about s/w QC, it’s all about h/w. Everyone and their cat could detect the problem, but not a trillion dollar company ? It’s this exact type of apologetic attitude that feeds their arrogance and makes them releasing all these crappy products lately.
This is about QC period. It is likely the testing that was being done was on the current patched version, the pro users playing with it for a week was using this patched version (the gold master version). (internal build) The issue was likely that some sort of certification/signature/approval was missing on this "module" and so when the build went to manufacturing... it was missing. If this is the case, what is missing in the process is a sampling and a final QC session on those coming out of manufacturing... So it was likely not software or hardware but process that was the root cause.
Agreed. When I said it's not about QC, I meant that it was not about s/w QC as a reply to the previous poster. That is my whole point; they could have detected the issue by testing the machine before releasing it. And by testing it, I mean pushing all the cores to the limit for an extended period of time; one could have thought that this should be a standard part of their QC procedures for a "pro" machine.
Having said that, however, the missing key has only improved on the insane fluctuation of the cpus. The i9 models are still throttling too much (although more consistently now) and the thermal behavior is not good at all, and no patch can fix that. The cpu cannot even go near the advertised top frequency. These thin MBP cases cannot support the i9 thermal behavior properly, especially since apple tries to keep the machine quiet by configuring the machine to allow higher temperatures before the fans kick in.
The CPU runs within specs. The average for all cores with CPU intensive workload (primarily) was around 3.15Ghz. The single core usage -- I have not see if it can spike up to 4.8GHz, but that said - I think it is really unrealistic in a laptop (maybe a luggable) to hit that rate since you are talking more than 80 watts TDP.
Is it the fastest... No... is it worth it to upgrade from the 2.6GHz i7... highly unlikely (only on maybe one specialized workload would you see any benefit). Does the thermal design limit it... sure... you will see the i7 (both of them run at a higher clock speed - to base which is why there is not much benefit to the i9).
In the end, it all comes down to workload. I keep on seeing people through around how this will be a problem for 'pro's (referring to creating pros). For 'YouTube pro's it might mean a slightly slower render time... but then they don't do that over and over on the road. For higher end pro's (read studios, TV/film) ... they would likely still not use laptops - they are better served by continuing to outfit a video production truck with real workstations... 4TB is not very much when you are dealing with multi-camera footage etc. There are plenty of heavy duty storage/shipping containers designed so that if you have to take your equipment with you -- you can take your workstations, monitors etc.
When it comes to developers - while they often think they need the power - a lot of the tools don't scale up as much in respect to multi-core anyways.
These machines are very good ... if you must or prefer using macOS they give people a good option (and they don't break your back). For creative pros ... the more important release is next year with the Mac Pro and it will be the one to watch to see if Apple is back in the game. It is really the release I am most interested in.
It all comes down to workload/workflow...
It will never go to 4.8. The max is actually 4.6GHz Turbo for this processor, the 0.2GHz difference you can get with what Intel calls "Thermal Velocity Boost", and that only kicks in if the temps are lower than 53ºC. It's never gonna be under 53ºC @ 4.6GHz in any laptop. Additionally it requires extra voltage, which the MBP VRM may not be able to provide.
No tech reviewer/youtuber picked up on this, which says a lot about the current state of the tech review community.
Most youtuber tech bloggers don't do real system testing. They focus more on the look and feel of the device and then do about 5 minutes of "look my software runs!"
there are very few reviewers who are willing to spend the time and effort to perform numerous objective tests to see actual performance. This board generally hates him, But Linus at Linus Tech Tips is pretty dang good at providing full blown reviews with detailed numbers alongside. For more traditional reviews, you will need to stick to some of the old dogs. Anandtech is pretty reliable. TomsHardware, HardOCP etc all generally focus more on numbers than "PRETTY!"