Busting the "throttling is evil" myth

[1096bimu]

And your opinion on this is also biased. My opinion is biased. So what

So that I have presented OBJECTIVE DATA which show your opinion is wrong.
[doublepost=1535632884][/doublepost]

Yes, to be quite frank

Sure, everyone can see that at this point you are just arguing for the sake of it.
Nobody actually cares about the temperature of the first 1 minute out of several hours of their work shift.

 

[maflynn]

So that I have presented OBJECTIVE DATA which show your opinion is wrong.

I disagree, I don't see anything how each CPU works in detail. You provided generalities in how CPU should work, but without knowing the logic that Intel built into the hardware and how Apple adjusted the those setting in the firmware, you're making assumptions.

All too often I see people complain about how others are producing biased opinions and they alone are the voice of reason and objective reporting. Please back up your statements of fact citing how Intel and Apple handles turbo boost, or how it handles throttling and thermal issues.

 

[1096bimu]

I disagree, I don't see anything how each CPU works in detail. You provided generalities in how CPU should work, but without knowing the logic that Intel built into the hardware and how Apple adjusted the those setting in the firmware, you're making assumptions.

All too often I see people complain about how others are producing biased opinions and they alone are the voice of reason and objective reporting. Please back up your statements of fact citing how Intel and Apple handles turbo boost, or how it handles throttling and thermal issues.

Did you click the links I posted? temperature measurements show that both are exactly the same. which of course they are because they have the same TDP.

 

[leman]

So? Having the option to go way higher is just better than not having the option because you loose nothing by having it.

Yes, but it creates unrealistic expectations AND large spread of actual CPU behaviour over different machines with different cooling, which in turn creates more and more confusion.

The funny thing is, we have had diminishing returns with CPU tiers for years. Higher-end models were barely 5% faster in real life while being more expensive, and it didn't really bother anyone. But since Coffee Lake, everyone is like crazy fro some reason, every if the factual situation didn't change. I blame the marketing, at least in part. The i9 has such crazy high clocks — but these clocks are actually not attainable on a majority of laptops. Instead of seeing this CPU for what it is: a part with an essentially open-end turbo frequency, people are focusing to much on the potentially reachable performance instead of reasonable performance.

IMO, Intel should have called this part an i7-8950H (just like it was the case with all the top-tier CPUs before), and set the to frequency to much more reasonable 4.5 Ghz. This would have avoided much of the unhealthy hype and speculation we have now.

 

[maflynn]

I don't have an engineering degree, I'm not a CPU expert, I've readily admit that, but from my uneducated eyes, I see too many reviews, blogs and benchmarks that show the i9 running hotter in thinner designs then the i7. I go by the old statement, if it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck. Its a duck

 

[leman]

I don't have an engineering degree, I'm not a CPU expert, I've readily admit that, but from my uneducated eyes, I see too many reviews, blogs and benchmarks that show the i9 running hotter in thinner designs then the i7. I go by the old statement, if it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck. Its a duck

maflynn, if its not too much bother, could you post a link or two?

 

[1096bimu]

I don't have an engineering degree, I'm not a CPU expert, I've readily admit that, but from my uneducated eyes, I see too many reviews, blogs and benchmarks that show the i9 running hotter in thinner designs then the i7. I go by the old statement, if it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck. Its a duck

They say it because lots of angry gamers are looking for reasons to bash Apple products. Saying how Apple product suck is a huge business.
Are you going to actually read the temperature measurements or are you just going to bury your head in the sand?

 

[Ma2k5]

They say it because lots of angry gamers are looking for reasons to bash Apple products. Saying how Apple product suck is a huge business.
Are you going to actually read the temperature measurements or are you just going to bury your head in the sand?

Out of curiosity, I noticed that you were looking to mod your MBP because the CPU was hitting 100 degrees C (https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/im-thinking-of-a-thermal-mod-for-the-mbp.2133914/) - would this not indicate that you are not perfectly happy with how Apple have designed their products, pretty much like everyone else who has made a criticism?

 

[1096bimu]

Yes, but it creates unrealistic expectations AND large spread of actual CPU behaviour over different machines with different cooling, which in turn creates more and more confusion.

The funny thing is, we have had diminishing returns with CPU tiers for years. Higher-end models were barely 5% faster in real life while being more expensive, and it didn't really bother anyone. But since Coffee Lake, everyone is like crazy fro some reason, every if the factual situation didn't change. I blame the marketing, at least in part. The i9 has such crazy high clocks — but these clocks are actually not attainable on a majority of laptops. Instead of seeing this CPU for what it is: a part with an essentially open-end turbo frequency, people are focusing to much on the potentially reachable performance instead of reasonable performance.

IMO, Intel should have called this part an i7-8950H (just like it was the case with all the top-tier CPUs before), and set the to frequency to much more reasonable 4.5 Ghz. This would have avoided much of the unhealthy hype and speculation we have now.

Yes there are unrealistic expectations but I don't blame the marketing. It's called "turbo boost" for a reason, I'm pretty sure when asked, most people would know that a "turbo boost" probably doesn't last forever because that's how it works in games. (even thought actual turbo boost is always-on)

But yea I think the i9 branding is unjustified. Going up a tier in the i-number have always meant more cores or at least HT, not just a frequency bump.
[doublepost=1535633762][/doublepost]

Out of curiosity, I noticed that you were looking to mod your MBP because the CPU was hitting 100 degrees C (https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/im-thinking-of-a-thermal-mod-for-the-mbp.2133914/) - would this not indicate that you are not perfectly happy with how Apple have designed their products, pretty much like everyone else who has made a criticism?

If you read that thread I made it very clear that doing this will make the laptop unusable on your lap. Apple obviously made the right choice not to include this mod. What have I got to complain?

 

[Ma2k5]

If you read that thread I made it very clear that doing this will make the laptop unusable on your lap. Apple obviously made the right choice not to include this mod. What have I got to complain?

But in your own words, you can "mitigate" it? It is obvious you'd like a system which would ideally be usable on your lap and not reach 100 degress C. It is not exactly an impossible task for Apple far from it, just that they decided not to design for that. Similar to how they designed the product to meet a certain "performance" level, a level some may or may not be happy with.

 

[1096bimu]

But in your own words, you can "mitigate" it? It is obvious you'd like a system which would ideally be usable on your lap and not reach 100 degress C. It is not exactly an impossible task for Apple far from it, just that they decided not to design for that. Similar to how they designed the product to meet a certain "performance" level, a level some may or may not be happy with.

Yes if I mitigate it by putting a case on it, it will also mitigate the benefit of doing the mod in the first place. Having the case only acts as an off-on switch for the mod I described.

No Apple can't bend the laws of physics and do what you described.

 

[Ma2k5]

Yes if I mitigate it by putting a case on it, it will also mitigate the benefit of doing the mod in the first place. Having the case only acts as an off-on switch for the mod I described.

No Apple can't bend the laws of physics and do what you described.

Nothing about bending laws of physics, they could use more expensive components/materials/cooling solution to reach that goal (or do the easy way out and limit the clocks so it doesn't reach 100 degrees C). It is a matter of cost of course, because such a system would increase the cost of the laptop (e.g. liquid cooling, which even some phones have managed to incorporate).

But then I remembered, they slapped $300 to the cost for a touch bar that nobody wanted, how much better it would have been if that was used to engineer a new cooling solution, which would have made pretty much every other manufacturer follow suit too - and we'd be closer to quieter, cooler and more powerful laptops!

 

[Queen6]

You can't just appeal to ridicule by saying "lol put an i9 into a thin laptop" because there is absolutely no reason to think that is in any way bad practice.

A processor acts exactly the same as an electric heater to the thermal system, regardless of what it is called or how many cores it has. A 45W i9 is exactly the same as a 45W i5 to the thermal system so why can't you replace one with the other?

You could argue that given unlimited power and cooling, the i9 has more potential than last year's i7. But that's irrelevant because we don't have unlimited power and cooling.

A 45W i5 doesn't pull over 100W at full Turbo, or maybe Apple's engineers forgot to read the specs or do some basic testing. You can clearly drop an i9 into a notebook with just a 45W cooling solution and the net result is the 2018 MBP & Dell XPS with neither living up to their alleged full performance.

Q-6

 

[1096bimu]

Nothing about bending laws of physics, they could use more expensive components/materials/cooling solution to reach that goal (or do the easy way out and limit the clocks so it doesn't reach 100 degrees C). It is a matter of cost of course, because such a system would increase the cost of the laptop (e.g. liquid cooling, which even some phones have managed to incorporate).

But then I remembered, they slapped $300 to the cost for a touch bar that nobody wanted, how much better it would have been if that was used to engineer a new cooling solution, which would have made pretty much every other manufacturer follow suit too - and we'd be closer to quieter, cooler and more powerful laptops!

Ok, tell me about this "more expensive" component that conducts heat better than the heat pipe, what is it?
[doublepost=1535634840][/doublepost]

A 45W i5 doesn't pull over 100W at full Turbo, or maybe Apple's engineers forgot to read the specs or do some basic testing. You can clearly drop an i9 into a notebook with just a 45W cooling solution and the net result is the 2018 MBP & Dell XPS with neither living up to their alleged full performance.

Q-6

The "alleged full performance" of a 45w i9 is 6 cores at 2.9Ghz. Which the MacBook Pro does achieve, so does the XPS15.
BTW you can pull 200W with a 45W i5 (Probably at 5.2Ghz) if you want, you clearly failed to read or comprehend the OP.

 

[Queen6]

You should probably mention that its in a chassis thats 1kg heavier and 1cm thicker then the MBP... while being around twice the overall volume of the MBP

Just imagine what Apple could do with a few more millimetres It's also a 17.3" with duel drives and a GTX 1070, equally Asus improved the cooling solution for the 8th Gen CPU's and have just released a same spec in a smaller package again without any apparent cooling issue, and there's a 15"

Q-6

 

[Ma2k5]

Ok, tell me about this "more expensive" component that conducts heat better than the heat pipe, what is it?

I don't need to, the feat is not an engineering challenge, but a cost to benefit one. The idea that all these manufacturers have prioritised cooling, spared no expense, to the best of their engineering limits is the most ridiculous assumption to make - and I think we both can agree to that.

 

[leman]

A 45W i5 doesn't pull over 100W at full Turbo, or maybe Apple's engineers forgot to read the specs or do some basic testing. You can clearly drop an i9 into a notebook with just a 45W cooling solution and the net result is the 2018 MBP & Dell XPS with neither living up to their alleged full performance.

Could you point me to where the spec says that the i9 requires a stronger cooler to operate normally? All I could see in the technical documentation is that requirements for cooling the i5, i7 and i9 CPUs are identical.

 

[Ma2k5]

Could you point me to where the spec says that the i9 requires a stronger cooler to operate normally? All I could see in the technical documentation is that requirements for cooling the i5, i7 and i9 CPUs are identical.

Not to be condescending, but it would be the part where the manufacturer test the chips themselves and not rely on Intel's "marketing" material. I would think in any trade, the manufacturer would do their own testing and not take what their suppliers say as gospel.

 

[Queen6]

Ok, tell me about this "more expensive" component that conducts heat better than the heat pipe, what is it?
[doublepost=1535634840][/doublepost]
The "alleged full performance" of a 45w i9 is 6 cores at 2.9Ghz. Which the MacBook Pro does achieve, so does the XPS15.
BTW you can pull 200W with a 45W i5 (Probably at 5.2Ghz) if you want, you clearly failed to read or comprehend the OP.

Well enjoy being stuck at 2.9GHz, while smarter designs allow for far greater performance. Apple's cooling is inadequate simple as that...

Q-6

 

[1096bimu]

I don't need to, the feat is not an engineering challenge, but a cost to benefit one. The idea that all these manufacturers have prioritised cooling, spared no expense, to the best of their engineering limits is the most ridiculous assumption to make - and I think we both can agree to that.

You do need to because it is kind of like aliens and UFOs, they don't exist unless you can show me an example.
[doublepost=1535635690][/doublepost]

Not to be condescending, but it would be the part where the manufacturer test the chips themselves and not rely on Intel's "marketing" material. I would think in any trade, the manufacturer would do their own testing and not take what their suppliers say as gospel.

Allow me to translate:
"I couldn't because I just made it up to be consistent with my current beliefs"
[doublepost=1535635763][/doublepost]

Well enjoy being stuck at 2.9GHz, while smarter designs allow for far greater performance. Apple's cooling is inadequate simple as that...

Q-6

So you admit that you have nothing to say?
and the only thing you can do now is cry for more performance?

 

[Ma2k5]

You do need to because it is kind of like aliens and UFOs, they don't exist unless you can show me an example.
[doublepost=1535635690][/doublepost]
Allow me to translate:
"I couldn't because I just made it up to be consistent with my current beliefs"

1 - You stated that it is phsyically impossible without providing evidence. You have just used an "opinion" which is, since Apple hasn't done it, it must be physically impossible, which is a ridiculous assumption, far more than the assumption that is mine which is that it is unlikely any of these manufactuers have gone to the engineering limits when it comes to cooling the CPU's due to a benefit to cost challenge. If all these manufactuers made profit based on how much they could cool the systems, something tells me that they would design something very different to today - but in your world clearly not as that is physically impossible.

2 - I didn't make up anything, I never mentioned anything about Intel providing temperatures or specs, feel free to quote if I did otherwise.

 

[leman]

equally Asus improved the cooling solution for the 8th Gen CPU's and have just released a same spec in a smaller package again without any apparent cooling issue, and there's a 15"

I assume you are talking about the Asus VivoBook N580GD? Unfortunately, I couldn't find any reviews on that machine with a 6-core CPU..

 

[Queen6]

Could you point me to where the spec says that the i9 requires a stronger cooler to operate normally? All I could see in the technical documentation is that requirements for cooling the i5, i7 and i9 CPUs are identical.

Only at the base frequency, or did you forget that one. I suspect Intel's technical data sheets will provide OEM with guidance for max Turbo etc. It was apparent to me in minutes that the 8750H can pull over 80W at full bore, wonder how that one slipped past Apple's engineers...

Q-6

 

[1096bimu]

1 - You stated that it is phsyically impossible without providing evidence. You have just used an "opinion" which is, since Apple hasn't done it, it must be physically impossible, which is a ridiculous assumption, far more than the assumption that is mine which is that it is unlikely any of these manufactuers have gone to the engineering limits when it comes to cooling the CPU's due to a benefit to cost challenge. If all these manufactuers made profit based on how much they could cool the systems, something tells me that they would design something very different to today - but in your world clearly not as that is physically impossible.

2 - I didn't make up anything, I never mentioned anything about Intel providing temperatures or specs, feel free to quote if I did otherwise.

One cannot prove something to be impossible. Things are considered impossible when no-one can prove otherwise.

You made up the claim that the i9 needs stronger cooling.
[doublepost=1535636151][/doublepost]

Only at the base frequency, or did you forget that one. I suspect Intel's technical data sheets will provide OEM with guidance for max Turbo etc. It was apparent to me in minutes that the 8750H can pull over 80W at full bore, wonder how that one slipped past Apple's engineers...

Q-6

It didn't, you simple fail to understand how thermodynamics work. Turbo boost is a technology to take advantage of the thermal mass of the system. It doesn't need to be considered when designing your sustained heat dissipation.

 

[Queen6]

So you admit that you have nothing to say?
and the only thing you can do now is cry for more performance?

Don't need to say anything as a picture is worth a thousand words

Guessing being power limited and the rising T2 issue are irrelevant, as all professionals want unstable systems that under perform.

Q-6