Intel is to Blame... It's True.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Miltz, Jul 19, 2018.

  1. Miltz, Jul 19, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018

    Miltz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    Why is no one blaming Intel? Everyone is just s****** on Apple and saying crazy things like “fraud”. I told everyone NOT to get the new 2017 Macbook Pro over the 2016 because the performance would be Identical (except 10bit video). I was right. Apple wasn’t in a rush to upgrade these laptops for good reason. Intel really Isn’t making better, cooler, laptop CPU’s. They really aren’t. Forget the BS benchmark tests. I’m talking real Pro use like video/photo editing, etc. Even going back to the 2015 model to the 2016, Apple upgraded the entire laptop, top to bottom, and It was amazing (except keyboard reliability). But the CPU performance was close, too close. Over the last 5 years Intel has struggled to make a faster performing Laptop CPU. I’m talking about a REAL laptop. Not those 12lb windows desktop replacement computers, that they still call laptops for marketing reaons.

    Since Intel is slacking and feeling the heat from AMD, they needed to do something before they lose big customers like Apple to AMD. So what so they do? Well, let’s just add more cores. That should solve the issue of minimal performance gains over the years in the 4 core laptop space. Right? Unfortunately, you can’t just stuff 2 more cores into a CPU and expect it to run just as cool without a major redesign of the architecture and process. Furthermore, INTEL, NOT APPLE is giving these i9 cpu’s performance specs that are completely unreachable in a modern lightweight, and thin laptop. Did people really think 6 core would run at 4.8GHz in a portable and thin laptop? I mean come on. Really? Shame on Intel. These 6 core CPU’s especially the i9 should be reserved for the 12lb windows laptops with two power bricks and desktop class cooling.

    But wait, it’s Apple fault for using and offering it… I know some of you are thinking that. Well here’s the thing, EVERYONE was complaining, on and on and on about the Macbook Pro not getting “spec” updates with the latest and greatest from Intel. Now you have it, but you’re going to still complain on and on and on. Apple Can’t win. The bottom line is the Macbook Pro is a real portable, thin and lightweight machine. I have a 2016 spec’d out model and it’s the best computer I’ve ever owned. I love that it’s quiet, I love that its thin, I love that it’s lightweight. If Apple built a Macbook Pro around the i9 so it wouldn’t throttle it would turn into a gross, ugly, windows 12lb laptop that’s even more expensive than the current MBPs. So it will never happen. Intel is really to blame here and rather than throwing more cores at the problem without a major redesign in architecture and process, it’s only hurting itself. And it’s further hurting itself by the outrageous claims of base clocks and 4.8GHz Turbo. But imagine if Apple didn’t offer this i9 in the laptops, EVERYONE would go crazy. I think this gives AMD an opening to come in and take business from Intel which I predict will happen in the next year or so. Intel has had major issues the past couple of years, (I’m not going to go into detail here because it’s so much, but those of you who know, know what I’m talking about.) If you have a 2016 or 2017 15” MBP there is NO reason to upgrade to the new models.
     
  2. themp Contributor

    themp

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    #2
    I couldn't have said it better...
     
  3. G4DPII macrumors regular

    G4DPII

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2015
    #3
    Did Intel force Apple to put them in the new machine? NO

    Apple made the choice, but it's Inte'ls fault.
     
  4. Mathematig macrumors newbie

    Mathematig

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    This guy has no idea what he is saying. This is INTEL's fault? Unbelievable.
    I really have nothing to say to this post. Maybe we should just ignore it.
     
  5. negativzero macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #5
    Nope, it’s still Apple’s fault for not testing the laptop well enough before selling Macs with these chips. Coffee Lake chips have been out on Windows laptops for a while now and there were signs of throttling.

    What you can blame Intel for is making a powerful CPU that isn’t realistically usable on any laptop out there now without better cooking solutions.
     
  6. throAU, Jul 19, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018

    throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #6
    Because intel have a clear spec, and at the end of the day it is the OEM's responsibility to design a chassis to accomodate it.

    Intel's spec for TDP is to support base-clock.

    Apple just wanted to include the i9 to be "ME TOO!!" in the market and didn't bother to change a single thing in their chassis to accomodate it.

    The 14nm architecture is very, very similar to what we've had since Skylake. It is not rocket science that stuffing in an additional 2 cores and then trying to ramp it up past 4 ghz in the current chassis was going to be a disaster. It is well known that all of intel's CPUs have been capable of running well in excess of their TDP in stock configuration via the boost clock for several years at this point.

    Thus, Apple as the OEM should have done something about the cooling. They've had these processors to TEST and do R&D with for well over 6 months (likely engineering samples for far longer than that) at this point. They've been available retail elsewhere (in PCs) for months.

    Apple are last to include them, had the benefit of seeing other people's problems, had the opportinity to do additional work to accomodate them, and did not.

    THIS is why Apple is to blame.
     
  7. haruhiko macrumors 601

    haruhiko

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    #7
    Apple sells the laptop and it's Apple branded. Apple has the responsibility, no doubt. Apple won't tell you to go to Intel and blame them. They will accept your return.

    Intel's inability to release better PC CPU is another issue. I'm guessing that the upcoming iPhone and iPads will have better single threaded score in Geekbench than the latest Intel CPU. Let's see.
     
  8. Mathematig macrumors newbie

    Mathematig

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Location:
    Chicago
    #8
    Exactly, Apple must have done a lot of tests before senting it to market. But the problems still existed.
    And now someone it blaming Inte......
     
  9. Nozuka macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    #9
    Most of the issues can be fixed with a firmware update. The fans need to kick in faster and harder and they need to limit the burst power from the CPU. It's no good to go this high if it goes below base frequency afterwards.

    Not sure if this will help the i9 alot, but should be enough for i5 and i7.


    But i don't think it was a bad decision to update to the new CPUs. They are still faster than the old ones.
     
  10. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #10
    This will not fix the issue.

    This will just increase noise, reduce performance and delay the issue.
     
  11. KarmaRocket macrumors regular

    KarmaRocket

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #11
    Listen, I get it. You like Apple and you want to defend them. While Intel is not entirely innocent, they're just trying to make the CPU's. They didn't tell Apple to put the hotter CPU's with the same heatsinks and fans as the quad core chassis. That was Apple's decision.

    Razer came out with their updated laptops. They used the hexa-core i7's and created a 15" laptop compared to their previous 14" blade. They probably figured they needed the bigger space for cooling. They even came up with a new vapor cooling technology to help keep the CPU cooler. They probably tested the i9 but thought it was too much heat and would throttle. That's a company that is trying to make the new CPU's fit in with their products. Rather than being lazy and throwing a much hotter CPU in an 3 year old design that was fit for much cooler CPU's.

    Apple probably has the metrics and figure most of their "pro" users don't tax the CPU to it's full potential.
     
  12. negativzero macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #12
    Not at all, this would be putting a Ferrari engine in a Toyota, and not in a good way.

    The real fix would be for Intel and Apple to improve the TDP thermals.
     
  13. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #13
    Do you understand the implications of what you are saying? Apple doesn’t update the machines - bad. Apple updates the machines - bad. There is not much Apple (or any other laptop manufacturer) can do if the thermal behavior of the new CPU is completely borked. Apple designs their cooling to precisely match the specs of the chips. These chips however run way above their advertised spec.

    Another strange thing is that coffee Lake mobile us build on intel’s new and improved 14nm process, which was supposed to dramatically increase power efficiency. So far, it’s not noticeable.
     
  14. throAU, Jul 19, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018

    throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #14
    Yes, there is. They can alter the chassis to accomodate, or they can choose not to run the CPU in an enclosure that is inadequate. The i9 thermal behaviour is not really "completely borked". It is what it is. To run at much higher than base clocks, it needs much better power delivery and cooling. This is not rocket science.

    Alternatively Apple could have put a 6 or 8 core Ryzen in there at appropriate clock. But they didn't. They chose to run an i9.

    No, they do not, as far as spec goes, they are no different to Skylake and Kaby Lake.

    ALL of these processors can boost beyond their rated TDP which is for BASE clock. The i9 simply boosts further beyond it. But this is why intel gives OEMs engineering samples to play with. So they can TEST and ensure their chassis/cooling/power delivery solutions pass muster.

    Apple clearly did not test, or did test and figured they'd ship anyway.

    Intel expected to be on 10nm by 1-2 years ago. They aren't. This is irrelevant. Apple should be testing their designs before shipping to customers. End of story.


    edit:
    Would not surprise me if the new keyboard membrane is actually a negative for cooling. It is sealing the top case of the unit somewhat better than before, which may be reducing it's ability to shed heat. It certainly won't help in any case.
     
  15. PeterJP macrumors 6502

    PeterJP

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Location:
    Leuven, Belgium
    #15
    It's clear that Intel is at fault. It's also clear that Apple is at fault.

    Intel promised a mobile focus with ever-decreasing TDP to Apple back in 2015 or so. Based on that, Apple designed a chassis and cooling solution that was on the edge. Maybe a bit too tight for the 2016 release, but hey, they're Apple. They do that. Look at the first MBA and the first new macbooks: both heavily underpowered, but they really started shining after a few years with processor upgrades. This was Intel promising the exact same thing for 2016 on. They had a winning streak. Everything looked like they could continue for a while.

    But Intel didn't. After more that 2 years, 10nm is still nowhere. Performance has stayed identical. Only way to solve it was to add more cores and ignore the previously already vague meaning of TDP. Intel screwed up (and still is) in a major way.

    But at the same time, why didn't Apple change their plans in a changing situation? Dell tried the same chassis for the i9 and failed. Apple must've known Intel wasn't going to deliver about a year ago. They could've redesigned their chassis for the new reality, which is that for better performance the heat would go up tremendously.

    Both are to blame. Not just Intel or Apple.
     
  16. fokmik macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    intel just made a chip....that chip should be tested by the companies like Apple/Dell etc that who wants to use it..
    Since Apple did re-enginnered the imac pro internal cooling to support Intel xeon and Vega...i think Apple should did the same for this i9...or the best thing...not TO OFFER this option until the next redesign of the internals (2019/2020 models)
    So no, its not Intel fault because they just made a high performance 45W chip that i bet its performing a lot better in something like Alienware or 17" laptops...Apple should have gone with 17" MBP for the i9 with proper cooling
     
  17. George Dawes macrumors 6502a

    George Dawes

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Location:
    =VH=
    #17
    This bizarre infatuation with making everything slimmer is to blame
     
  18. Howard2k macrumors 65816

    Howard2k

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    #18

    No.
     
  19. mr.anthonyramos macrumors 6502

    mr.anthonyramos

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #19
    I think it goes both ways. Apple has been known to do well with optimizing both software and hardware but in this case, it seems like they are losing their grip on things. Just because something is available, doesn’t mean that Apple doesn’t need to test and validate its capabilities and limitations.
     
  20. cyberone macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    #20
    Apple can't reinvent the wheel each time a new computer update sees the light of day.

    Maybe we're just too spoiled and demanding and can't tell the difference between real-world use and fuzzy benchmarks.

    if it works and does the job for many years to come, what more do I need?
     
  21. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #21
    You can't really start producing a new chassis in two to three months. Not to mention that it is quite pointless to redesign a chassis for a single generation of CPUs that run too hot because of manufacturing issues.

    Isn't it? My i7-6920 is a 45W CPU and somehow I never seen it draw more power even running on its maximal boost (where it can maintain around or above 3Ghz under 100% core load pretty much indefinitely). Now we have third-party tests that show that a Coffee Lake 28W part actually draws twice as much power under load. And the i9 is measured to draw up well above 100W (MSI quite 150W).

    They draw power in excess of the advertised TDP in a way that neither Skylake or Kaby Lake ever did. Again, Skylake etc. can maintain their upper boost range without going too much over the design power. Coffee Lake doesn't seem too. These shouldn't sold as 28W/45Watt CPUs in their present configuration. They are essentially factory overclocked processors that consume much more power for a boost in performance. In the end, its all about marketing.

    Of course they tested :D But again, consider marketing implications. I can already see forum posts in my mind. "Dell XPS ships with i9, MacBook Pro doesn't, *** you apple, we pros need more power, I'm going to buy a Dell".

    At any rate, my i9 should be here on Tuesday and I would like to see for myself how bad the issues are.
     
  22. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #22
    They had engineering samples a lot longer than 2-3 months. If the chassis wasn't ready, don't ship.

    Certainly don't ship then advertise it as running up past 4 Ghz when the enclosure can barely sustain it at 2.8.

    Apple chose to market it as an "up to 4.8 Ghz" processor, AFTER design and production (and presumably, testing) was complete.

    So, see where i said "they tested and shipped anyway".

    Clearly, marketing is driving this company, not engineering.

    It's sad.
     
  23. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Putting out the fire with gasoline...
    #23
    Apple has had Intel's 8th Gen specifications for at least six months. Apple chose for it's own reasons to use CPU's that are poorly matched for it's ultrathin notebook chassis.

    When installed in a well designed chassis with adequate cooling solutions the new hex core mobile CPU's are tremendously performant. Apple should have increased the cooling capacity same as other OEM's, Apple opted for form over function at the cost of performance simple as that...

    There's numerous notebook's utilising the new 8th Gen hex cores that are relatively thin & light and performant. Apple in it's obsession with being the thinnest & lightest has effectively neutered the MBP.

    Intel's slump in development is entirely another matter, and likely a tad more complex than most think.

    Q-6
     
  24. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #24
    This isn't reinventing the wheel every time a new computer update comes out.

    They're about 3-6 months behind everyone else, had more time than everyone else, and did less (basically nothing) than everyone else. They stuck it in a 2-3 year old design, that was marginal on the previous generation quad cores.

    I'm not sure why people are making excuses for Apple or defending them on this. They shipped a broken product. And yes, i use the word broken specifically because at doing actual high end work it is inferior to the model it replaces and in i9 spec, far more expensive.

    I expect a lot of returns due to various country's (including Australia) "merchantable quality" and "fitness for purpose" laws.
     
  25. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Putting out the fire with gasoline...
    #25
    Majority of the Windows OEM's have bolstered their cooling solutions and in some cases even reduced the size of the chassis without excessive throttling.

    The smarter OEM's also passed on the i9 for their lightweight notebooks for obvious reasons. Apple once again painted itself into a corner with it's vanity taking the lead...

    Q-6
     

Share This Page