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.
Did anyone actually saw i9 boost to 4.8?
- Thread starter Ploki
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know about the i9 but with other Intel chips the max turbo boost figure quoted in the specs only applies in single core use. Peak turbo boost in multicore mode is less.
i specifically said "single core" tho. Never ever had it boosted over 4.3 GHz.
I'm already aware peak turbo for these 6-core macbooks is 3.1GHz, regardless of which chip you have
4.8 is ‘Thermal Velocity Boost’ if the CPU temp is below 50C, so even if does boost to it most likely you won’t even notice, as it will be very short. Theoretically it should go to 4.6 without it, but still there may be not enough cooling, even for single core, especially since Apple made the fans quite laggy. You can try to set the fans to max speed and test again once you have CPU temp in the ~30C range and fans at full blast.
Core i9 1 CPU maximum frequency...
I believe the CPU frequency is fairly dependent upon the environment, that is, the ambient temperature and humidity. (That is, if you stuck the laptop in the freezer, the achievable CPU frequencies would be higher.) Also, the speed readings depend upon the granularity of the frequency measuring code (i.e., how long the moving average time interval is), especially on the latest 8-th generation Intel CPUs which can alter frequency extremely quickly. I used Intel's own "Intel(R) Power Gadget.app" to record the following CPU frequencies. And finally, the maximum CPU frequency will also depend on the optimization of the running code, with more highly optimized code probably able to achieve higher CPU frequencies. Also, because of the nature of today's CPU architectures, with speculative execution and address caches etc., the CPU frequencies may also vary slightly over time as the CPUs "learn", for lack of a better word, to run the code more efficiently. [One could even write code, not to perform any useful task, but simply to maximize the CPU frequency.]
Running a number crunching program (my own code) on 1 CPU of the 2018 MBP core i9 2.9GHz, I've seen CPU frequencies of 4.55 GHz using the Intel Power Gadget, but no higher. Once again, this doesn't mean that the CPU was not pushed to 4.8 GHz at some point, what it means is that over the time interval employed by the Intel Power Gadget app, the moving average of CPU frequency rose to 4.55 GHz (the mean frequency, in other words, over the measurement time interval).
Running Prime95 on 1 CPU, I've found a maximum Intel Power Gadget speed of 4.47 GHz.
In summary, one must be careful when reporting CPU frequencies to consider both the environmental conditions as well as the granularity of the frequency measurement code (i.e., the moving average time interval length). Just because the maximum measured CPU frequency is less than the specified turbo speed does not mean that the CPU frequency did not achieve the maximum turbo CPU frequency at some point during the time interval.
What do you think?
I believe the CPU frequency is fairly dependent upon the environment, that is, the ambient temperature and humidity. (That is, if you stuck the laptop in the freezer, the achievable CPU frequencies would be higher.) Also, the speed readings depend upon the granularity of the frequency measuring code (i.e., how long the moving average time interval is), especially on the latest 8-th generation Intel CPUs which can alter frequency extremely quickly. I used Intel's own "Intel(R) Power Gadget.app" to record the following CPU frequencies. And finally, the maximum CPU frequency will also depend on the optimization of the running code, with more highly optimized code probably able to achieve higher CPU frequencies. Also, because of the nature of today's CPU architectures, with speculative execution and address caches etc., the CPU frequencies may also vary slightly over time as the CPUs "learn", for lack of a better word, to run the code more efficiently. [One could even write code, not to perform any useful task, but simply to maximize the CPU frequency.]
Running a number crunching program (my own code) on 1 CPU of the 2018 MBP core i9 2.9GHz, I've seen CPU frequencies of 4.55 GHz using the Intel Power Gadget, but no higher. Once again, this doesn't mean that the CPU was not pushed to 4.8 GHz at some point, what it means is that over the time interval employed by the Intel Power Gadget app, the moving average of CPU frequency rose to 4.55 GHz (the mean frequency, in other words, over the measurement time interval).
Running Prime95 on 1 CPU, I've found a maximum Intel Power Gadget speed of 4.47 GHz.
In summary, one must be careful when reporting CPU frequencies to consider both the environmental conditions as well as the granularity of the frequency measurement code (i.e., the moving average time interval length). Just because the maximum measured CPU frequency is less than the specified turbo speed does not mean that the CPU frequency did not achieve the maximum turbo CPU frequency at some point during the time interval.
What do you think?
Catch me if you can
Truly sad what the MBP has become, all that potential wasted just to look pretty 
Q-6
Q-6
I’ve seen mine go up to 4.5. I doubt that one could see more since a) there is not really such a thing as single-core operation in a modern multitasking OS and b) the power draw at 4.8 is just ridiculously high.
P.S. Queen’s benchmarks are impressive, but that’s using a gaming laptop twice the MBP’s size.
P.S. Queen’s benchmarks are impressive, but that’s using a gaming laptop twice the MBP’s size.
I'm sure somewhere they said that it's achievable under certain temperatures. If it's in a freezer then so be it. It sucks but Apple knows people accept it anyway so why not just sell it like that.
For the first time i’m having trouble accepting it tho.
Im going to open a case about clock speeds...
(Already have case open about display flicker. Machine is 4 weeks old, a 4k BTO)
I mean it's the chips theoretical max - and it says "Up to", so I don't know if Apple is to blame as Intel made the chips. Pretty sure every manufacturer just regurgitates whatever Intel tells them when it comes to it's chip specs.
(NB if you read my posts, you'll know I am far from an Apple apologist!)
(NB if you read my posts, you'll know I am far from an Apple apologist!)
Best course of action is just to return it. They will only do something when they notice it in their pocket.
I kind of agree, it could be seen as false advertising from Intel. However, what counts in the end is that the i9 CPU is faster, so its not like you are being cheated. Besides, the CPU specs make a clear difference between the guaranteed, nominal clock and the opportunistic, max turbo clock. Has always been like this — from the time where Turbo Boost and similar tech has been introduced. I have no idea why people assume that the turbo boost clocks are guaranteed. Its not like any of the old CPUs were able to hit their max TB to begin with.. .
[doublepost=1540292373][/doublepost]
And you expect them to do what exactly? The only way to "solve" this is to dump Intel and have an in-house developed CPU...
They would process the feedback as to why the item was returned. It's not false advertising from Intel as long as you have proper cooling which is up to the OEM (Apple in this case).
In my PC my 6700k would run at at the max clock speeds constantly while in a iMac it would struggle if too much load is being put on it. Who's using false advertising in that case?
IMO the proper solution is to think better about the cooling system the MBP offers.
Apple needs to put up or shut up, stop with the nonsense. When professional's have to switch to gaming notebooks re-rolled as Workstations there is something fundamentally wrong.
Base i7 8750H your all welcome to challenge, there's not an insignificant difference here 3.9GHz six cores well past the PL-2 limit of 28 seconds, no overheat, no throttle. I'm considering a notebook with the i9, difference being it can reach 5GHz and deliver...
Q-6
[doublepost=1540297038][/doublepost]
Is just BS for the masses, MBP's cooling solution is hopelessly inadequate...
Q-6
Last edited:
You're not wrong there. My ideal for an i9 platform would have been a workstation class chassis with adequate cooling and the ability to upgrade/replace RAM/SSD. But thinner is the new "Pro" right?
There is a reason Apple has fallen to #7 in Laptop Magazines Best/Worst brands and a large part of that is that they have by far the lowest score of any major brand for innovation due to it's "hardware stuck in the sand" and poor scores for design and value and selection.
@queen: sure, I’m a chassis that is over twice the volume and 1 kg more than the MBP. We’ve been over it over and over and you still can’t see that you are comparing different categories of machines. I care about performance, but I also care very much about mobility. I’m happy to pay 20% sustained performance for halving the footprint. Call me again when you find a 2kg laptop than can sustain 3.9Ghz, now that would be impressive.
And about “professionals forced to get gaming laptops”... what are you even talking about? Apple never made a high-performance workstation to begin with. Precision, HP ZBook etc. - all of them always came with significantly faster hardware, at the price of form factor. Anyway, why did you get a gaming laptop and not a real workstation to begin with?
And about “professionals forced to get gaming laptops”... what are you even talking about? Apple never made a high-performance workstation to begin with. Precision, HP ZBook etc. - all of them always came with significantly faster hardware, at the price of form factor. Anyway, why did you get a gaming laptop and not a real workstation to begin with?
Last edited:
You can, just be persistent with it. Some forum members, including me, were in the same situation as you and got a redund. Don’t accept anything less than very high quality for the price you’re paying.
At the same you are not paying nearly enough to suspend the rules of physics
You're paying for a design choice that is not capable of running turbo clocks for longer than 3 seconds. If a proper cooling solution was used than there would've been no problem. It's Apple's choice to make these Macbooks so thin, so I most definitely understand why the performance is so poor.
At the same you are not paying nearly enough to suspend the rules of physics
lol, i chuckled.
still, my damn display shouldnt be flickering at 5grand price tag.