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....???
The average power dissipation and junction temperature operating condition limit, specified in Table 5-2Table 5-5 for the SKU Segment and Configuration, for which the processor is validated during manufacturing when executing an associated Intel-specified high-complexity workload at the processor IA core frequency corresponding to the configuration and SKU.
Also, there is no mention of 100W or anything like that anywhere in the documentation. And yeah, Apple should have tested nada, nada. Of course they did test. But don't you think its strange that the technical documentation of a SKU and its actual thermal performance are so different?
and for a company with $ billions stashed off-shores, this saga is pathetic and has deservedly tarnished their reputation and overall image even further. Just sad. There is simply no excuse.
Intel for offering?? yeah, tell me a company thats says NO to money and profitProbably 60% Intel for making and offering these rather dubious ‘45W’ chips and 40% Apple for using them anyway...
I haven't put my MBP under load yet, and it was definitely spiking in the 90s, during my initial setup, but with Macs Fan Control the temps are back to what I consider normal. I'm hoping that app will fix the issues for me.Say what you want, but if a machine can't even sustain the base clocks under sustained load that's definitely a design defect
Large computer companies like Apple get early advanced copies of the chipsets. I think many of them just sat on their laurels and didn't really do the due diligence, planning and work needed - just my $.02Probably 60% Intel for making and offering these rather dubious ‘45W’ chips and 40% Apple for using them anyway...
Intel for offering?? yeah, tell me a company thats says NO to money and profit
Razer Blade did this and I believe MSI is another where they customized the cooling solution and both run cooler (relatively speaking)
No it doesn't. They moved to a vaper chamber and its running a heck of lot cooler, especially compared to the MBP. I know, becauseI bought one. I also did a lot of research and under heavy load, it was hitting the 80c. This is even more remarkable given the high end GPU that's in the Razer which generates a lot of heat on its own, where as the MBP has a rather anemic GPU.IFrom what I've seen, the 8-th gen in it does suffer from a good deal of thermal throttling.
They moved to a vaper chamber and its running a heck of lot cooler, especially compared to the MBP. I know, becauseI bought one.
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.
Did Intel force Apple to put them in the new machine? NO
Apple made the choice, but it's Inte'ls fault.
All the benchmarks I saw, were pretty fast, I never heard about notebookcheck, but from my research they had the best Coffee lake/GPU combination that ran much cooler then almost anyone else. I think MSI was coolerInteresting to know, thanks, was not aware of that! The reason why I was saying that it throttles is because it seems to perform below the Dell XPS 15" with the same CPU (https://www.notebookcheck.net/Razer-Blade-15-i7-8750H-GTX-1070-Max-Q-FHD-Laptop-Review.305426.0.html vs. https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-X...wice-as-fast-as-its-predecessor.308578.0.html).
I haven't put my MBP under load yet, and it was definitely spiking in the 90s, during my initial setup, but with Macs Fan Control the temps are back to what I consider normal. I'm hoping that app will fix the issues for me.
I think computer manufacturers were caught flat footed with Coffee Lake. I think many of them including Apple just assumed they could plop the chip set into the existing enclosures and move on, not so. Coffee Lake requires more aggressive cooling. Razer Blade did this and I believe MSI is another where they customized the cooling solution and both run cooler (relatively speaking)
Yes, that's what I'm saying, but I said flat footed because I think Apple and Dell both did one of two things.Intel is provides engineering samples way in advance, some companies did their homework some did not, equally none were surprised.
Like I said, other computer makers like MSI and Razer found cooling solutions for the hot Coffee Lake CPU.
Doesn't matter, the fact is that there are laptops out there with better specs running cooler then what apple rolled out.I'd say that their cooling solution was aimed at cooling down the large GPUs they use. I very much doubt that they did it for Coffee Lake.
Just looked at the Intel's technical documentation. They say that 45W is enough to cool down the i9. Furthermore, from Intels 8-th gen data sheet Volume 1 (Table 5-1) defines TDP as following:
Sounds quite clear to me: when running "high-complexity workloads", 45Watt of cooling should be sufficient to maintain the base frequency. And MBP's cooling is good enough for that, as shown by the performance with earlier gen CPUs. Yet it doesn't for some reason. Also, there is no mention of 100W or anything like that anywhere in the documentation. And yeah, Apple should have tested nada, nada. Of course they did test. But don't you think its strange that the technical documentation of a SKU and its actual thermal performance are so different?
The i9 is designed to replace earlier top-end CPUs such as i7-6920HQ/7920HQ etc. With Coffee Lake, Intel does not offer a high-end i7 CPU anymore at all. And their top-end is as it seems clocked waaay too aggressively for the silicon to handle it.
My point is: either Intel is being a bit dishonest in their technical documentation, or we have some other issues that are not yet properly studied. Of course Apple carries responsibility. But I don't think its reasonable to tell that they shouldn't have used a chip that is marketed and described by its manufacturer as being suitable for their laptops.