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

[roland.g]

"Intel isn't making better, faster, cooler CPUs..."

The faster a CPU the hotter it will run. That's why a Surface Pro with an i7 under load overheats too. You can't put that kind of performance in such a small enclosure and not have a heat vs airflow battle. Apple does quite a good job with cooling on their notebooks, but they also potentially sacrifice thermal optimization at the expense of making them as thin as possible. Apple could make a marginally thicker notebook (not to add more battery) but for bigger and more effective (yes they would be larger too) fans.

Are people surprised that they are trying to squeeze desktop class performance into a notebook and heat is an issue.

As to the throttling issue that Dave the gooey tuber has everyone all up in arms over, I for one think it is being blown out of proportion. I bet that more often than not, users, even pros, will not run into it. Multi-core, multi-threaded tasks usually run for a shorter time. Rendering and exports can be the exception, however again you need significant duration and task to achieve that. I don't see throttling affecting but a fraction of a sliver of users in a very small set of those users performance needs.

 

[apiro]

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.

You sound like Apple has never seen the CPUs themselves, just read the specsheet, met its requirements, fired up the production line, blindly put the CPUs in and called it a day.
[doublepost=1532073734][/doublepost]

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.

Because of what?!
[doublepost=1532073879][/doublepost]

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.

So in the end it's "neither Skylake or Kaby Lake ever did" or "without going too much over the design power"? The thing is "too much". Ship more cores, increase going over the design power. Simple as that. No rocket science.

 

[Nozuka]

This will not fix the issue.

This will just increase noise, reduce performance and delay the issue.

No. It can increase performance, if the CPU never gets into the state where it's so bad it has to go below base frequency. And even at the highest fan speed, the macbook is not as loud as other laptops at the highest. If you really want high performance, you will have to deal with that.

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.

These CPUs were made to work exactly like they do. Not every device has the same thermal condictions and they were not made with the same target in mind.

If Intel had to make these CPUs for a specification with the worst possible conditions in mind, they would be much slower.
But they made them adaptable. They try to get as much performance they can out of every device.

The Macbook Pro is extremly thin and portable (and designed for older versions of the CPU). Obviously it will not be able to use them to the full potential. But it is still faster than last years chips, because it got more Cores to work with.

A redesign was not planned for this year, so this is what we are getting. And it is better than not updating the CPU.


But again: The i9 might be a lost cause and a bad decision from Apple.

 

[throAU]

Multi-core, multi-threaded tasks usually run for a shorter time. Rendering and exports can be the exception, however again you need significant duration and task to achieve that. I don't see throttling affecting but a fraction of a sliver of users in a very small set of those users performance needs.

Multi-core, multi-threaded workloads are typically threaded that way in order to get a lot of work done in a shorter period of time. I.e., they tend to run for a long time.

Given that multiple sources have already complained about throttling, and in the real world, doing real high end work, these far more expensive machines are slower than the previous model, i think your estimate that a fraction of a sliver of users is extremely optimistic.
[doublepost=1532074953][/doublepost]

No. It can increase performance, if the CPU never gets into the state where it's so bad it has to go below base frequency. And even at the highest fan speed, the macbook is not as loud as other laptops at the highest. If you really want high performance, you will have to deal with that.

And in the mean-time, by reducing clock to prevent it throttling back to below base-clock, you've lost that faster burst performance for bursty workloads. By reducing clock, you're maybe also running those tasks slower than the quad core i7 due to the lower clock.

Ramping up the fan will increase noise.

There is no band aid fix for this. The cooling is inadequate.

Remember: this isn't a 500 dollar ultrabook. This is marketed and sold as a high end portable multimedia workstation that can be configured up to around $10k.

 

[roland.g]

Multi-core, multi-threaded workloads are typically threaded that way in order to get a lot of work done in a shorter period of time. I.e., they tend to run for a long time.

Given that multiple sources have already complained about throttling, and in the real world, doing real high end work, these far more expensive machines are slower than the previous model, i think your estimate that a fraction of a sliver of users is extremely optimistic.

As another user noted, most Pros aren't going to do / and likely shouldn't do high high workloads of video editing on a laptop. But that is neither here nor there. Just his opinion.

But I'm also not sure you know the definition of extremely, or you have misapplied it in use. However, I think we need to agree to disagree.

 

[jinnyman]

I was hoping that Apple would use some kind of exotic cooling system (like vapor chamber) to accomodate 8th gen 6core/12thread CPU. Boy I never thought people would defend lack of engineering common sense from Apple!

 

[throAU]

As another user noted, most Pros aren't going to do / and likely shouldn't do high high workloads of video editing on a laptop. But that is neither here nor there. Just his opinion.

But I'm also not sure you know the definition of extremely, or you have misapplied it in use. However, I think we need to agree to disagree.

Doesn't matter what "most pros" do with the device. They can run facebook and solitaire on it 99% of the time for all that matters.

What matters is how this device is marketed and the money you are paying for it. This is where Apple are going to get shafted by fitness for purpose and merchantable quality laws in places like Australia.


As above, it is being sold as a premium multimedia workstation, at a (very) premium price. It isn't.

Also, right now a handful of people have these. We are already seeing complaints. My use of the word "extremely" was specifically chosen.

 

[clangers23]

Desperate nonsense from the OP. Intel didn't force Apple to design a ludicrously thin form over function range of laptops which Apple then chose to drop an inappropriate CPU into. Apple could have stuck with Coffee Lake quad cores if they'd wanted to.

 

[leman]

Because of what?!

Have you even been following the CPU tech news in the last few years? Intel has failed to deliver next-gen CPUs (they are two years behind now), so they are simply slapping more cores and factory overclocking their existing designs. And as I wrote above, Coffee Lake was supposed to be manufactured using an improved process that makes chips more power-efficient but thats not really happening.

So in the end it's "neither Skylake or Kaby Lake ever did" or "without going too much over the design power"? The thing is "too much".

There is a dramatic difference between drawing 50-55W at burst max turbo with TDP of 45W and drawing 50W in multi-threaded workflow for a 28W CPU (as measured by notebookcheck). MSI estimates the boost power draw of Coffe Lake 6-cores at 90+ Watt (with the i9 at 150Watt)! Thats a massive increase in power consumption for small increase in performance.

And of course, these CPUs were never designed to run turbos for long time. Its just a burst feature. I would never expect a laptop (except the large gaming machines) to be able to maintain higher range of clocks on an i9. However, if the reviews going around youtube are correct and even basic tasks makes the i9 throttle below 1Ghz, that is certainly not ok.

 

[Queen6]

I was hoping that Apple would use some kind of exotic cooling system (like vapor chamber) to accomodate 8th gen 6core/12thread CPU. Boy I never thought people would defend lack of engineering common sense from Apple!

Welcome to the world of Apple, if more people challenged Apple we wouldn't be in this situation today.

Sadly we are stuck with under performing, poorly designed computers albeit beautifully executed...

Q-6

 

[throAU]

There is a dramatic difference between drawing 50-55W at burst max turbo with TDP of 45W and drawing 50W in multi-threaded workflow for a 28W CPU (as measured by notebookcheck). MSI estimates the boost power draw of Coffe Lake 6-cores at 90+ Watt (with the i9 at 150Watt)! Thats a massive increase in power consumption for small increase in performance.

And of course, these CPUs were never designed to run turbos for long time. Its just a burst feature. I would never expect a laptop (except the large gaming machines) to be able to maintain higher range of clocks on an i9. However, if the reviews going around youtube are correct and even basic tasks makes the i9 throttle below 1Ghz, that is certainly not ok.

Yes, intel is having issues with process.
Yes, intel is adding cores and raising clocks and tweaking the definition of TDP in order to make it look like they are making gains.

All that is irrelevant.

Apple are an OEM who gets processors to test with for engineering purposes long before retail availability (this is why they are called "engineering samples") to validate their designs before shipping.

Apple (along with DELL, HP, etc.) would have been supplied these engineering samples specifically to test and validate their designs against, and signed off on it as being OK.

 

[clangers23]

Have you even been following the CPU tech news in the last few years? Intel has failed to deliver next-gen CPUs (they are two years behind now), so they are simply slapping more cores and factory overclocking their existing designs. And as I wrote above, Coffee Lake was supposed to be manufactured using an improved process that makes chips more power-efficient but thats not really happening.



There is a dramatic difference between drawing 50-55W at burst max turbo with TDP of 45W and drawing 50W in multi-threaded workflow for a 28W CPU (as measured by notebookcheck). MSI estimates the boost power draw of Coffe Lake 6-cores at 90+ Watt (with the i9 at 150Watt)! Thats a massive increase in power consumption for small increase in performance.

And of course, these CPUs were never designed to run turbos for long time. Its just a burst feature. I would never expect a laptop (except the large gaming machines) to be able to maintain higher range of clocks on an i9. However, if the reviews going around youtube are correct and even basic tasks makes the i9 throttle below 1Ghz, that is certainly not ok.

That's all true because the fabrication process is yielding less and less return. It's not just Intel struggling to get down to less than 10nm. How is it Intel's fault that Apple design a compromised laptop and then drop a CPU that everyone knows has increased power and heat demands?

Apple's inherent flawed design resulted in the previous gen Kaby Lake reaching it's thermal limitations. Apple could have redesigned their ludicrously thin laptop to accommodate the latest gen CPU's or simply told everyone that Coffee Lake H series cannot be integrated into the latest MBP's. That might have taken courage though.

 

[The Mercurian]

Multi-core, multi-threaded tasks usually run for a shorter time. Rendering and exports can be the exception, however again you need significant duration and task to achieve that. I don't see throttling affecting but a fraction of a sliver of users in a very small set of those users performance needs.

Clearly you've not heard of Bayesian statistics or markvo-chain monte carlo algorithms ?

This thread is ridiculous. Did intel force Apple to stuff new chips into last years form factor? No, they didn't. Therefore, its Apples responsibility.

 

[Eason85]

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.

Actually, I am 100% sure it's your fault. Literally. You and people like you who deny reality.

 

[leman]

Ship more cores, increase going over the design power. Simple as that. No rocket science.

Only if you ship more cores without improving their efficiency. When we went from dual-core to quad-core designs, the mobile CPU TDP went from 35W to 45W. Intel is quoting the TDP of hex-core CPUs at the same old 45W, while in reality they should be more around 60W.

At any rate, this entire thing is a flawed marketing. And sure, its Apple who put themselves into a crappy situation by designing their cooling system strictly around the 45W CPU. I know that I sound like an blind unreasonable Apple supporter, but their choice would be either skip Coffee Lake or wait half a year more to ship a redesigned chassis that will probably be obsolete by mid 2019 when the next gen comes out.

All that said, there are still a lot of things that doesn't make sense. Why does Apple chassis better than Dell's for Skylake and Kaby Lake but fails for Coffee Lake? Since Dell's cooling is worse, shouldn't it have even more issues? Why has severe throttling so far only been shown in tests that also involve GPU in some way (pro video software), but not in the CPU-only sustained tests (as tested by geekbunch devs here: https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/)? Looking at all this, I am sure that there is more to the equation. Why in all the throttling shown so far the CPU utilisation is so low and the temps way below the throttling threshold? My bet is that there is a bug in the power controller firmware that makes this entire issue way worse more than it actually is.

 

[apiro]

Have you even been following the CPU tech news in the last few years? Intel has failed to deliver next-gen CPUs (they are two years behind now), so they are simply slapping more cores and factory overclocking their existing designs. And as I wrote above, Coffee Lake was supposed to be manufactured using an improved process that makes chips more power-efficient but thats not really happening.

And what of these is manufacturing issues? R&D issues yes. These CPUs were manufactured as advertised.

There is a dramatic difference between drawing 50-55W at burst max turbo with TDP of 45W and drawing 50W in multi-threaded workflow for a 28W CPU (as measured by notebookcheck). MSI estimates the boost power draw of Coffe Lake 6-cores at 90+ Watt (with the i9 at 150Watt)! Thats a massive increase in power consumption for small increase in performance.

No difference for the OEM at all. You have to accommodate over-TDP heat and as you have shown it has long been known there is over-TDP heat (both as per Intel definition of TDP and as per real-world usage). Here's an engineering sample a year before production. Here's a somewhat real sample half-a-year before production. Play, have fun.

Apple sold a lemon like Americans say. Pitty. How could've this happened?

And of course, these CPUs were never designed to run turbos for long time. Its just a burst feature. I would never expect a laptop (except the large gaming machines) to be able to maintain higher range of clocks on an i9. However, if the reviews going around youtube are correct and even basic tasks makes the i9 throttle below 1Ghz, that is certainly not ok.

You like to use "never ever" quantifiers a lot just to neglect them in the future sentence.

 

[Ma2k5]

What forum have you been reading? People have blamed Intel plenty on this forum.

This doesn't excuse or change the fact that manufactuers (not just Apple) have acces to these chips and test them and can make changes if they see fit (even if it is say, Intel's fault they run too hot). They could even, not sell them if they don't wish to change their laptop design to accomodate the chips.

You may argue but then people will complain about not having a spec update? Well people have complained about lack of ports, lack of a a dGPU which is greater than 50w+, when they removed the headphone jack on the iPhone etc - is Apple suppose to just accept all demands now? I thought Apple did what was best.

If they stuck a GTX 1070 in tomorrow without changing the cooling and your MacBook started frying eggs, would you be happy with Apple saying "Well you guys wanted it!".

 

[throAU]

All that said, there are still a lot of things that doesn't make sense. Why does Apple chassis better than Dell's for Skylake and Kaby Lake but fails for Coffee Lake?

It isn't better for Kaby lake? As far as Coffee Lake is concerned, maybe DELL actually did something internally but Apple did not? DELL are always changing things up inside.

 

[leman]

It isn't better for Kaby lake? As far as Coffee Lake is concerned, maybe DELL actually did something internally but Apple did not? DELL are always changing things up inside.

Well, Dell throttles on kaby lake and the MBP doesn’t. Check notebookckeck reviews. And didn’t Dell say that the cooling system has been not changed fir the 2018 model?

 

[throAU]

Well, Dell throttles on kaby lake and the MBP doesn’t. Check notebookckeck reviews. And didn’t Dell say that the cooling system has been not changed fir the 2018 model?

Maybe its the keyboard membrane in the 2018s making cooling worse.

Who knows
Who cares

The thing that matters is that the top end machine they are shipping is outperformed by last year's model.

 

[mrex]

...

 

[AdamSeen]

It's fascinating when people jump in to defend mega brands.

The fact is - throttling is fine. What's not fine is not reaching advertised base clock levels. Base clock levels are communicating that this is the speed you will get running under intensive load in normal office conditions.

If instead the Macbook Pro was advertised at true reasonable base clock levels, then the user could make an informed choice. Do I need the frequency? Do I need the multi-core power? Is my CPU workload mostly in bursts?

 

[mr.anthonyramos]

Maybe its the keyboard membrane in the 2018s making cooling worse.

Who knows
Who cares

The thing that matters is that the top end machine they are shipping is outperformed by last year's model.

It’s also hilarious how people create an absolution based on a single test. Yes there is a throttling issue but by no means does it mean that the i9 is beat by the i7 quad core in every test. Go watch a few more objective reviews please.

Throttling is one thing but claiming that the i7 quad core 2017 model is faster than the i9 based on a single video seems a little illogical.

 

[Maven1975]

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.

Apple could have simply refused to implement these processors into their product.

If Apple would have posted a statement claiming the chips were not within their spec/thermal guidelines, it would have been just that.

Apple knew the thermals of these chips long before we did.

If they were wanting to stick with the same chassis and knew in test labs that it was going to be an issue, they did not have to release the product.

Just because the market is pressuring them to release a product does not mean they have to follow. (That basically Apples additude to begin with) “Think Different”

If they would have designed the chassis to accommodate the CPU, this would not have been an issue.

Honestly, I think this more or less fuels their desire to move to their own architecture.

If they can fool the public into thinking that Intel chips suck, then they won’t face as much pushback when the transition is made.

 

[ALRS_S48]

OP TL;DR: Poor Apple didn't know any better! Dropping a 100+W power hungry piece of silicon into it's current 50-W cooling system....??? Profit? What could go wrong? Not like Apple has billions sitting off-shores and cannot afford simple run-of-the-mill testing? Right?

BUT BEAUTIFUL DESIGN, BEutiful ahh MAC - carry on.