No, I missed that, perhaps when I'm ready to re-boot I can re-test the app.
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.
Cooling Solution for the 2018 MBP
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Like most of the drama on these forums, this is a non-issue for most people, especially for i7 owners. Returning the laptop for this is, in my opinion, silly - unless your work really requires you to get the maximum theoretical amount of available performance from a computer that just has to be a laptop. But in that case, you should probably get some 17" HP mobile workstation.
Thin laptops just can't get the same level of performance like the large ones. Also, we all know Apple designs these computers with a certain roadmap and to last a few generations (and a complete redesign is still not due), and they most likely expected that, by 2018, when 6-core chips hit the market, Intel would be making 10nm CPUs. Everyone expected that, because Intel expected that. No one knew they would mess up their tick-tock plan so much. On the other hand, if they didn't offer the i9, everyone here would be "Dell did it, why can't Apple, they call this a pro machine", etc. And Dell also has some serious throttling in the XPS series.
Even with all that throttling, the i9 MacBooks and XPSs are the most powerful laptops of that size. If you want more power, you need to go bigger, that's physics. But do you really want to? Everyone here claims they do, but most of them actually don't. This is called 'whining'.
Also, I find it really sad that most enthusiasts here just go for the top spec and then they cry how they spend a lot of money and didn't get 200% increase in performance or anything. Look, people, 32Gb RAM is NOT for opening a lot of Safari tabs. i9 is NOT for encoding home videos. I watched a clip (I think it was AppleInsider, not sure) where they showed how you shave off a few minutes of a 15 minute encode with i9 vs a 2 year old i7 from 2016! Like 2 minutes! For hundreds of dollars more! The i9 is NOT for futureproofing (compared to the i7, I mean), it is NOT good value for the average consumer. Most likely, it is not for most of us here.
Who is it for? For people who make a living of serious calculations and shaving off a few seconds can mean bigger profits - for people who don't care if their computer costs $2000 or $4000 or $10000 dollars and who are not looking for a good deal. And for them, sure, it throttles, they payed, like, 300 dollars more for a few % of more performance.
Anyway, back to you Maflynn, your 6-core i7 is a beast, throttling or not, and it will - based on what you say your usage is - be mostly overkill, and will serve you nicely for a long time. Disabling Turbo Boost is nice, because it will keep your computer cooler, and I bet you could just leave it on and not think about it.
You seem like a good, reasonable guy, so my advice to you is: just enjoy your computer and stop thinking about it.
Last edited:
Yep, but then again you’re use would easily be handled by the nTB MacBook, and probably even the 12” MacBook (even for minor VM work).
To a point, I do agree with you, because every coffee lake laptop has thermal issues, though some are better at evacuating the heat no question. All get very hot though
It is, silly but I can understand the angst, frustration and anger. I too went through those feelings because after spending 2.5k on this machine, that apple marketed as a premium product, I was getting something worse then I expected. Yet, when you step back, take a deep breath and stop adding to the feeding frenzy (I'm just as guilty for doing that), you see yes there's a problem but there are solutions. Even if I didn't find that Turbo Boost Switcher App. I had set up the fans to adjust for the heat and was more or less content.
Its a fine machine, and I've said this in the past but I think I forgot about it myself. Don't sweat the small stuff and in life where we are struggling with larger issues, having a laptop hit 90c is minor.
You don't know them
. Life is too short to really get so worked up, and I've been blessed by the Lord in so many ways. I'm truly thankful that I have the opportunity to be able to buy this laptop in the first place. I asked my kids if I should return this, and both screamed out NOOOO they both like it as well, and with Apple I have a known quantity and customer service that is #1 in the industry. That went a long way in my buying decision. I had no issues with Razer when I bought that, but to do the return, I had to go through an online process and not call someone, which was odd. I found that out, after being on the phone for 30 minutes and them telling me to use the web - oh well.
Is this even possible on a Mac? How does one do that? Asking just out of curiosity.
http://volta.garymathews.com
Its an option in this program. Going by this article, the problems seem to stem from Apple only setting a limit on temperature, while most laptop makers limit power draw also. They claim setting a power limit on the Mac improves things considerably - even without undervolting. Hoping someone with one will confirm. It would be a great win fro crowdsourced solutions from the rabbling masses
Article here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...e-performance-with-a-few-clicks.317552.0.html
To a point, I do agree with you, because every coffee lake laptop has thermal issues, though some are better at evacuating the heat no question. All get very hot though
It is, silly but I can understand the angst, frustration and anger. I too went through those feelings because after spending 2.5k on this machine, that apple marketed as a premium product, I was getting something worse then I expected. Yet, when you step back, take a deep breath and stop adding to the feeding frenzy (I'm just as guilty for doing that), you see yes there's a problem but there are solutions. Even if I didn't find that Turbo Boost Switcher App. I had set up the fans to adjust for the heat and was more or less content.
Its a fine machine, and I've said this in the past but I think I forgot about it myself. Don't sweat the small stuff and in life where we are struggling with larger issues, having a laptop hit 90c is minor.
You don't know them
I asked my kids if I should return this, and both screamed out NOOOO they both like it as well, and with Apple I have a known quantity and customer service that is #1 in the industry. That went a long way in my buying decision. I had no issues with Razer when I bought that, but to do the return, I had to go through an online process and not call someone, which was odd. I found that out, after being on the phone for 30 minutes and them telling me to use the web - oh well.
It is a tricky situation. On one hand you think I’m not getting value for money for the components as they can’t peform to their potential. On the other hand, no other laptop on the market can really do it well of similar size (some better, some worse). The choice is to either live with it in that it doesn’t affect your workflow much and accept the loss of value, or wait indefinitely.
I guess for many it will just make sense to keep it (although I’d downgrade i9 to i7 and upgrade something else as @aevan hinted at, but I can see you chose i7 already). I guess it’s the fear people have or seeing something released next year with either better chips or improved cooling and having buyers remorse.
So I’ll conclude, if you need a laptop, just buy it - in a years time if in the worst case scenario they release something amazing, sell up and upgrade at a small potential loss (hey at least you got a years use!).
If you already have a laptop and want to buy because you would like a shiny toy but don’t really need it (my case), I’d say wait it out unless you expect some real tangible productivity gains. Some of us, I’m guilty of it, spend £1000’s every year on tech we don’t actually need!
But that's the thing - our expectations ruin our enjoyment. And our expectations get bigger and bigger. What I always try to explain is that your notebook costs 2.5k not because it is the fastest or is made with magic, it costs because it is *nice*. That is why your kids love it, that is why you enjoy it - it is a premium product. You expected some level of performance that is very hard to achieve on a laptop of this type, and you probably don't even need that performance. So, now you're ignoring everything else and focusing on that fictive loss of performance.
That's of course, just my guess, I could be wrong
Anyway, I think your computer will do really well.[doublepost=1532171971][/doublepost]
http://volta.garymathews.com
Its an option in this program. Going by this article, the problems seem to stem from Apple only setting a limit on temperature, while most laptop makers limit power draw also. They claim setting a power limit on the Mac improves things considerably - even without undervolting. Hoping someone with one will confirm. It would be a great win fro crowdsourced solutions from the rabbling masses
Article here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...e-performance-with-a-few-clicks.317552.0.html
I'd actually be scared to mess with these values, but it does seem like a nice app. I'd love to hear what people have to say about if.
As I recall you used to tell everyone nobody needed 32GB Ram. Yet peoples whining was heard and now there is a 32GB RAM option. Guess what whining wasn't just whining - its was legit complaint and it achieved something. Similarly, the current "whining" will end up in imrpoved machines for everyone. Stop trying to silence people Apple don't need you to do that for them!But that's the thing - our expectations ruin our enjoyment. And our expectations get bigger and bigger. What I always try to explain is that your notebook costs 2.5k not because it is the fastest or is made with magic, it costs because it is *nice*. That is why your kids love it, that is why you enjoy it - it is a premium product. You expected some level of performance that is very hard to achieve on a laptop of this type, and you probably don't even need that performance. So, now you're ignoring everything else and focusing on that fictive loss of performance.
That's of course, just my guess, I could be wrong
Yeah I understand the reluctance, but if it gave me there performance I need, I would try it. Yes very curious if it works for anyone
no question, I could buy a much faster laptop, but I didn't. I opted for something that's well built, I have a great experience with the platform/ecosystem. Like I said, the dust has settled, I'm happy with my decisions and I'm not having any buyers remorse.
I'm in that crowd where I think the majority of people really don't need 32GB but for a variety of reasons they feel compelled and feel their "want" is actually a "need"
There was a time nobody really needed dual core, ssd’s, 16GB RAM etc. These machines were available prior to actual need. But this is a good thing, because software evolves to work with what people have, not what people will have.
If we never embraced 32GB until people needed, then only a minute amount of software will exist to use such RAM. If the majority’s of users have better specs - we will get better software.
This is the same for even things like 4K, where as more people adopt it, the more content becomes available for such standard. Same happens for things like 3D (which due to lack of adoption, hasn’t got much content relatively speaking) or VR/AR (if adoption of technology which enables AR/VR, we will see more of it).
So I am happy that people are getting RAM, SSD, or tech in general which is overkill for their current use - because it will promote new software (or products) to make use of it in the future.
I've reworked the Volta app with power limiting and I'm seeing better results. I can better manage how much performanceI want with the level of heat that comes with it. I think we have a winner and I'll update the my OP to include the link and reference.
[doublepost=1532175098][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1532175098][/doublepost]
There are people who need 32GB, but I think you have it backwards. The consumer isn't driving the memory requirements, but rather the developers and that's the issue. Many people are not using apps that push beyond 16GB. There are apps that could use it, like VMware and other high demanding products but the majority of consumers for 2018 and the foreseeable future will not be running any programs that would see a marked improvement with 32GB. Yet with that said they still want the 32GB because its the next biggest configuration they can have
In my experience of software dev (especially true in game dev), one of the main talking points is target demographic - and the reach we can attain. We have the niche companies who develop games like Crisis who can really only be enjoyed by the top 1% of specs, but most companies work around survey data to decide how much power their software should require. I 100% believe as better tech comes and people adopt it, it is then that which drives development, not the other way around.
We have always worked around users - so if most people still use IE, our web apps will have to be made to accommodate that even if it’s a pain (oh and it is!). In general, we monitor CPU, GPU and RAM usage of our software to meet guidelines so as to meet the target demographic. Our software capabilities could be made so much better if we assumed or targeted everyone of top specs.
The patter is the same with 4K, HDR etc. With so many people embracing 4K, more video format is created as such. HDR content is at present minimal, but as mor people adopt HDR TV’s, to not lose out to competition people will provide HDR content.
If most people have 16GB or higher, software will be created to utilise that. At the moment, it will only be niche programmes. It may seem hard to imagine a world where the average user can make use of 16GB/32GB RAM, but just look at the past 5/10 years of how the average specs have evolved for laptops and phones. There was a time that 4GB ram would seem overkill for someone just doing light browsing and office use, but nowadays most people wouldn’t do even light work on 4GB (because those tasks have evolved capabilities which now use more power).
Last edited:
That's fair enough, but as you say your computational needs are modest.
I tend to keep my GL703GS on Silent unless I I need to use the brute performance, then I'll switch to Balanced and flip Windows to max performance. Overboost I rarely use as it mostly just overclocks the GPU.
What does impress is the independent CPU/GPU cooling solution and under low loads the fans will completely shut down.
In many respects the performance of the new hex core mobile CPU's is way in excess of the majority of users needs, equally one should still get what one pays for.
I also think for many the throttling will be a non issue as they will never push the notebooks hard enough as the performance is robust to say the very least.
Q-6
yes, the throttling will be a non-issue but we're having a feeding frenzy on this right now. I think the bigger issue for the majority of users, is the heat. While the temps may not hit 100c so we'll not see throttling, the fact that we're seeing temps, in the 90s and 80s is not a good thing. I don't want to see those temps either for the longevity of my Mac, but also for not cooking my legs (with it on my lap), or being hot to touch
Just as a heads up - I am pretty sure undervolting on Volta isn't actually doing anything on our 2018 MBPs. I don't see any different in voltage or performance even at -150mV.
However, as others have realized lowering the Power Level has really nice results. Limiting at 45W can make it take much much longer for any thermal throttling... (however you will still eventually hit it if you say run Cinebench more than 5 straight times)
For my machine, I would need to lower the Power Level to about 34W to have it NEVER thermal throttle. I guess this MBP chassis wasn't even designed for the full 45W chip with the additional 2 cores - let alone the fact that these chips can go way above 45W without any intervention.
However, as others have realized lowering the Power Level has really nice results. Limiting at 45W can make it take much much longer for any thermal throttling... (however you will still eventually hit it if you say run Cinebench more than 5 straight times)
For my machine, I would need to lower the Power Level to about 34W to have it NEVER thermal throttle. I guess this MBP chassis wasn't even designed for the full 45W chip with the additional 2 cores - let alone the fact that these chips can go way above 45W without any intervention.
Funnily enough I was one of the folks screaming for it and now thats its here, my needs have changed and now I don't want it enough to pay an extra €400
I'd still get it if I were to order a 15", but i'm more likely to get a 13" now
I agree, the app is not altering the voltage, but it is limiting the wattage. I have it set to 35 watts, which gives me a nice balance of power with not too much heat.
Well if you still use them then that’s your fault and no fault of Apple or anybody else. The issue is specifically with the i9. Shouldn’t be spending $300 more for it to throttle like that for a slight increase of power. The i7 is a better choice at this point
I never said 'nobody', I said 'a vast majority', and that still holds true today. The fact that Apple is selling 32Gb doesn't mean people actually need it. Apple will sell what people want to buy, and most of those people will buy it for the wrong reasons. Apple is happy to take your money.
For a small amount, 32 - and even more (a lot more) is really needed. For those, it's good that the option exists.
Again, for the vast majority of people, professional or not - 32Gb is a serious overkill. Same with i9, honestly. I stand by what I said. People claim they need 32Gb because they open a lot of browser tabs. That is just wrong. But hey, how you spend your money is your thing.
[doublepost=1532180790][/doublepost]
So, you're using it instead of that Turbo app you mentioned at the beginning. Is it worth it? I kinda think just the turbo boost disabler is enough and I don't like messing with wattage and stuff.
Are there any benefits to that wattage change opposed to disabling turbo boost?
[doublepost=1532181157][/doublepost]
I am not seeing any performance difference while using Photoshop, Zbrush, etc. with Turbo Boost disabled and the MBP is 20 degrees cooler. These are not demanding apps, so I think I should be fine with just the turbo boost thing, and switch it on when rendering. I don't feel like doing the undervolt and wattage thing. Think I would gain something if I did?
Yes, I'm finding this to be a better solution in all honesty. With the Volta app, I have a finer degree of control, whether I want to undervolt (this doesn't seem to be working for the Coffee lake CPUs), disabled turbo boost like that other app, or limit the wattage.
Yes, by reducing the wattage, you have more control of finding the balance of power vs. heat.
Here's the comparison. The first image is with Turbo Boost switcher and you can see that I'm pulling in a 697 with temps on the 60 range. The second image is with Volta and I limited the wattage to 35 watts. Cinebench is showing 869 - a much better result. I'm getting a faster machine and the temps just broaching 90c. I can reduce the wattage to 30, and that will lower the spike even further if I choose.
Last edited:
If it works for you, it's the best option. With the undervolt and power limits, you just set and forget. You can potentially pick up a little more performance depending on how Apple originally set up the MBP.
Applying an undervolt will reduce power draw, and allow the CPU to run at a higher frequency up to Intel's locked maximum.
On your model you shouldn't need to alter the power limits. If 7700HQ rarely exceeds 50W
Q-6
Last edited:
I think that wouldn't actually do much at all - if anything - as the bottom side of the macbook isn't physically connected to any of the heat generating devices inside of it.
These temps is within specs, so it's not harmful to your computer. People obsess too much over heat; the throttling limit is there for a reason, it's there to prevent the system from overheating; it's not a sign it is actually overheating.
I disagree, while the 100c is within the specs of the CPU (and maybe even GPU) there are plenty of other components in the enclosure that are much more sensitive to heat including the battery, ssd and ram. So while the CPU is may not incur damage, I'm not so sure about the other comportsThese temps is within specs, so it's not harmful to your computer. People obsess too much over heat; the throttling limit is there for a reason, it's there to prevent the system from overheating; it's not a sign it is actually overheating.