Did anyone actually saw i9 boost to 4.8?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Ploki, Oct 22, 2018.

  1. Ploki macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #1
    No matter what i do, it tops at 4.3 GHz...
    Even when i stress test only a SINGLE core.

    4.3 GHz boost is 2.6 specs. Did i get a lemon or are they false advertising the i9?
     
  2. Mike Boreham macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    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.
     
  3. IngerMan macrumors 65816

    IngerMan

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #3
    Makes sense, my 2.9 2017 shows 3.9 max but I never seen it go above 3.5.
     
  4. Ploki thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #4
    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
     
  5. Thysanoptera macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2018
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #5
    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.
     
  6. solouki macrumors member

    solouki

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2017
    #6
    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?
     
  7. Qaulity macrumors member

    Qaulity

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2018
    #7
    I've gotten to 4.5ghz for a short while, usually it's closer to 4.3ghz. I've modded by added thermal pads, before the mod I was getting <3ghz.
     
  8. Bob1985 macrumors member

    Bob1985

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2015
    #8
    I've definitely seen it boost to 4.8GHz with single core.
     
  9. Queen6 macrumors 604

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Flying over the rainforest at dawn - Priceless
    #9
    Catch me if you can
    Corona 300K Rays.JPG 1277CB.png Truly sad what the MBP has become, all that potential wasted just to look pretty :(

    Q-6
     
  10. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Ploki thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #11
    So apple is advertising 4.8 in a freezer?

    Isnt that false advertising?
     
  12. mdnz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Ploki thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #13
    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)
     
  14. Ma2k5 macrumors 68020

    Ma2k5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Location:
    London
    #14
    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!)
     
  15. mdnz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #15
    Best course of action is just to return it. They will only do something when they notice it in their pocket.
     
  16. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #16
    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.. .
    --- Post Merged, Oct 23, 2018 ---
    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...
     
  17. mdnz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Queen6, Oct 23, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018

    Queen6 macrumors 604

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Flying over the rainforest at dawn - Priceless
    #18
    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
    --- Post Merged, Oct 23, 2018 ---
    Is just BS for the masses, MBP's cooling solution is hopelessly inadequate...

    Q-6
     
  19. SDColorado Contributor

    SDColorado

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2011
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO
    #19
    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.
     
  20. leman, Oct 23, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018

    leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #20
    @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?
     
  21. Ploki thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #21
    i cant return it, two weeks overdue
     
  22. mdnz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #22
    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.
     
  23. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #23
    At the same you are not paying nearly enough to suspend the rules of physics ;)
     
  24. mdnz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Ploki thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #25
    lol, i chuckled.

    still, my damn display shouldnt be flickering at 5grand price tag.
     

Share This Page

43 October 22, 2018