So much irrationality, such ignorance.
I did not write this for the MacBook line, the same thing applies to all laptops and yes phones as well, I'm not an Apple fanboy no thank you.
First of all, since I am assuming by "throttling" we mean a reduction in clock speed (technically the term refers to both reductions and increases), we need to ask ourselves an obvious question. What is the reference point from which we determine that the clock speed has been decreased?
Well the "base frequency" of course, which in the case of the i7-8559U is at 2.7 GHz. Which the 13-in MacBook Pro can sustain at. What seems to be the problem here?
Even with the notorious 15" and i9-8950HK, which has a base frequency of 2.9 GHz, the 15" MacBook Pro again, can sustain that frequency indefinitely at regular room temperature.
So it would seem that by definition, we have no reduction in clock speed, we have no "throttling" at least not on the 2018 MacBook Pro line, period.
========================================================
Obviously, for the hater to even have a case at "throttling" accusations, they would have to define the base frequency faster than the "base frequency" Intel provides, which makes no sense. These people would have you believe that these processors are "supposed" to be running at their maximum turbo boost frequency, so that they can call it "throttling" when the processors actually runs at its "base frequency" as defined by Intel.
If I'm reading this right, it sounds like for the i9-8950HK, anything faster than 2.9Ghz is "faster" than what it is supposed to run at. And this should only happen if the processor isn't at maximum heat or power. NOBODY EVER CLAIMED THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN CONSTANTLY.
So again there is no "throttling" what so ever, not the MBP15, not the XPS15, not the Razer Blade. These processors are running just as fast if not faster than their "rated operating frequency".
========================================================
Yes, as a matter of fact, if you put a water block on an i9-8950HK connected to a 240mm rad, with beefed up power delivery, you'll be able to run it at 4.8Ghz constantly. However it's just a twisted way of thinking and an absurd argument. Why even stop at 4.8Ghz? Why not put it under a copper tube filled with LN2 and go for 5.8Ghz? And then you can claim that any computer not running the i9 at 5.8 Ghz is therefore "throttling". You get to feel superior and look down on even more people! I'm guessing that didn't happen because most gamer nerds can't afford LN2 overclocking themselves.
There is a smooth and continuous function that describes the relationship between power draw and clock speed for every individual chip. There are no points on the curve that is special compared to any other point. When Intel says that the i7-8559U is 28W@2.7Ghz, that's just an arbitrary point on the curve. There is nothing preventing you from putting the i7-8559U in a 15W thermal environment, or a 65W power environment. So there isn't a frequency where the processor is "supposed" to run at in the first place. Just like there isn't a speed at which your car is "supposed" to run at. You simply drive faster or slower as the situation demands it.
(FYI There are different chips for different power levels because of factors like PCIE lanes, instruction sets and cache sizes that can be optimized for a specific power range. The execution cores are essentially the same.)
========================================================
Also if you just imagine yourself designing a laptop yourself you'll understand that these actual laptops are completely rational designs. And that irrational loud gaming nerds on the internet are being ridiculous with what they are asking for.
Say you are in charge for a new 15" laptop. The marketing research guys have told you that the company should make a laptop that is no thicker than 18mm and no heavier than 2kg. If you ignore that and make a 5kg brick then you'll be fired because nobody would buy such a heavy laptop.
So you ask the engineering department ok how much cooling can we fit in that case while still having enough space for 7hr honest battery life? Your guys tell you that they can cool 60W without blowing out ear drums.
Now you can pick your processors, you have two choices:
Processor A run at a constant rock solid 3.2 Ghz with all 6 cores with a TDP of 60W
Processor B run can also run at 3.2Ghz with all 6 cores at 60W power, but can spike up to 4.8Ghz if temperature isn't already at maximum.
Would you be an idiot and pick processor A just so that you can avoid "throttling"
Or would you be reasonable and pick processor B? Because you know, B is obviously better in every way possible, except some idiots on the internet will accuse it of "throttling" when it clocks down from 4.8Ghz to 3.2 after 3 seconds of maximum load. Where as A just runs at 3.2 all the time.
========================================================
Yes ok, if only they made the laptop thicker and heavier, it would have better cooling and sustain higher clock speeds. But guess what else has that? a desktop computer. Why make a laptop so large and heavy that it might as well be a desktop? If weight doesn't matter to you because you never move your laptop, just get a desktop!
The higher end processors are in fact cooler than the lower end ones, contrary to ignorant speculations. Intel's "base frequency" is rated for the TDP of that processor model. So for 45W processors, if one is rated at 2.9Ghz and another at 2.2Ghz, the former generates less heat than the latter when run at equal frequencies.
So there is nothing more ridiculously stupid than claiming that an i9 will be slower than an i7 due to throttling. There is no throttling, and the i9 has been shown to be always after under all circumstances.
I did not write this for the MacBook line, the same thing applies to all laptops and yes phones as well, I'm not an Apple fanboy no thank you.
First of all, since I am assuming by "throttling" we mean a reduction in clock speed (technically the term refers to both reductions and increases), we need to ask ourselves an obvious question. What is the reference point from which we determine that the clock speed has been decreased?
Well the "base frequency" of course, which in the case of the i7-8559U is at 2.7 GHz. Which the 13-in MacBook Pro can sustain at. What seems to be the problem here?
Even with the notorious 15" and i9-8950HK, which has a base frequency of 2.9 GHz, the 15" MacBook Pro again, can sustain that frequency indefinitely at regular room temperature.
So it would seem that by definition, we have no reduction in clock speed, we have no "throttling" at least not on the 2018 MacBook Pro line, period.
========================================================
Obviously, for the hater to even have a case at "throttling" accusations, they would have to define the base frequency faster than the "base frequency" Intel provides, which makes no sense. These people would have you believe that these processors are "supposed" to be running at their maximum turbo boost frequency, so that they can call it "throttling" when the processors actually runs at its "base frequency" as defined by Intel.
If I'm reading this right, it sounds like for the i9-8950HK, anything faster than 2.9Ghz is "faster" than what it is supposed to run at. And this should only happen if the processor isn't at maximum heat or power. NOBODY EVER CLAIMED THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN CONSTANTLY.
So again there is no "throttling" what so ever, not the MBP15, not the XPS15, not the Razer Blade. These processors are running just as fast if not faster than their "rated operating frequency".
========================================================
Yes, as a matter of fact, if you put a water block on an i9-8950HK connected to a 240mm rad, with beefed up power delivery, you'll be able to run it at 4.8Ghz constantly. However it's just a twisted way of thinking and an absurd argument. Why even stop at 4.8Ghz? Why not put it under a copper tube filled with LN2 and go for 5.8Ghz? And then you can claim that any computer not running the i9 at 5.8 Ghz is therefore "throttling". You get to feel superior and look down on even more people! I'm guessing that didn't happen because most gamer nerds can't afford LN2 overclocking themselves.
There is a smooth and continuous function that describes the relationship between power draw and clock speed for every individual chip. There are no points on the curve that is special compared to any other point. When Intel says that the i7-8559U is 28W@2.7Ghz, that's just an arbitrary point on the curve. There is nothing preventing you from putting the i7-8559U in a 15W thermal environment, or a 65W power environment. So there isn't a frequency where the processor is "supposed" to run at in the first place. Just like there isn't a speed at which your car is "supposed" to run at. You simply drive faster or slower as the situation demands it.
(FYI There are different chips for different power levels because of factors like PCIE lanes, instruction sets and cache sizes that can be optimized for a specific power range. The execution cores are essentially the same.)
========================================================
Also if you just imagine yourself designing a laptop yourself you'll understand that these actual laptops are completely rational designs. And that irrational loud gaming nerds on the internet are being ridiculous with what they are asking for.
Say you are in charge for a new 15" laptop. The marketing research guys have told you that the company should make a laptop that is no thicker than 18mm and no heavier than 2kg. If you ignore that and make a 5kg brick then you'll be fired because nobody would buy such a heavy laptop.
So you ask the engineering department ok how much cooling can we fit in that case while still having enough space for 7hr honest battery life? Your guys tell you that they can cool 60W without blowing out ear drums.
Now you can pick your processors, you have two choices:
Processor A run at a constant rock solid 3.2 Ghz with all 6 cores with a TDP of 60W
Processor B run can also run at 3.2Ghz with all 6 cores at 60W power, but can spike up to 4.8Ghz if temperature isn't already at maximum.
Would you be an idiot and pick processor A just so that you can avoid "throttling"
Or would you be reasonable and pick processor B? Because you know, B is obviously better in every way possible, except some idiots on the internet will accuse it of "throttling" when it clocks down from 4.8Ghz to 3.2 after 3 seconds of maximum load. Where as A just runs at 3.2 all the time.
========================================================
Yes ok, if only they made the laptop thicker and heavier, it would have better cooling and sustain higher clock speeds. But guess what else has that? a desktop computer. Why make a laptop so large and heavy that it might as well be a desktop? If weight doesn't matter to you because you never move your laptop, just get a desktop!
The higher end processors are in fact cooler than the lower end ones, contrary to ignorant speculations. Intel's "base frequency" is rated for the TDP of that processor model. So for 45W processors, if one is rated at 2.9Ghz and another at 2.2Ghz, the former generates less heat than the latter when run at equal frequencies.
So there is nothing more ridiculously stupid than claiming that an i9 will be slower than an i7 due to throttling. There is no throttling, and the i9 has been shown to be always after under all circumstances.
Last edited:
