So you mean that Apple didn’t fully test out the machine to reach to its limit for their target professional users and just blindly trust what CPU provider said in the document? It doesn’t sounds right to me. Are you kidding me? Apple of course should carefully exam their new machines especially when they put in the new generation’s cpu into their slim laptop. If Apple know this issue exists and still release them into the market, I would say it’s 99.9% Apple’s fault and 0.1% Intel’s fault in this case. Maybe in Apple’s position, it’s 99.9% Intel’s fault. But as an Apple customer, I don’t think Apple have any excuse for this serious issue.
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.
Intel is to Blame... It's True.
- Thread starter Miltz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd say your wrong. GPU architecture has not changed, if anything with implementation of Max-Q some notebooks cooling requirement has lessened.
OEM's beefed up the cooling solutions for the hex core CPU's as they understood a 45W component boosting to 90W would generate significantly more heat. Apple for inexplicable reasons thought it would just be ok...
Q-6
Mind blown. I can’t believe that some fans still want to find excuse for Apple’s fault.
Intel sells processors.
Apple is responsible for cooling the processors.
Apple is responsible for cooling the processors.
I believe the issue lies in both courts, Apple and Intel. Intel is making processors that just aren’t good fits for the thin, “ultraportable” (is “ultraportable” anymore portable than just plain “portable”???), while Apple put them into their laptops without significantly redesigning the cooling system that goes with it.
However, I find it hilarious that all these people on here who are arguing that it is Apple’s fault plain and simple, that Intel didn’t force them to put the chip into their computer... and yet just last month I was reading thread after thread of some of the very same people whining about Apple not using the most up to date CoffeeLake processors. Apple actually was (to a certain degree) forced into using the Coffeelake chips because of the outcry the pro user base was giving over the “crappy” specs of the 2017 lineup... so, yeah I’ll leave that for you, and wait for all the hate replies to start piling up.
However, I find it hilarious that all these people on here who are arguing that it is Apple’s fault plain and simple, that Intel didn’t force them to put the chip into their computer... and yet just last month I was reading thread after thread of some of the very same people whining about Apple not using the most up to date CoffeeLake processors. Apple actually was (to a certain degree) forced into using the Coffeelake chips because of the outcry the pro user base was giving over the “crappy” specs of the 2017 lineup... so, yeah I’ll leave that for you, and wait for all the hate replies to start piling up.
It's just a little surprising that out of the box the mbps behave like they are. That means they were approved by apple engineers and were sent out the door like this. How did that happen?
Apple chose profits over quality.
How so? Wouldn’t negativity around these products keep people from buying them? Or buying one having a bad experience and returning it? Also what evidence do we have the current MBP is cheaper from a BOM standpoint?
So either Apple knowingly released a [6 core] machine that in some configurations runs slower then the prior generation [quad core] and most other configurations throttles or they were ignorant of the issues we owners are dealing with and in that case, they failed to do their due diligence.
We're not talking about a run of the mill computer maker but Apple that bills itself as a premium product, and for such a company to roll out such a product that overheats so easily uncalled for. People are spending around 3k for this machine that runs slower then last year.
So if Apple did not choose profits over quality, why do you think they released a machine that fails to live up to its branding?
Edit: added amplification
Last edited:
There was also outcry about 32GB of RAM before 2016 and 2017 release but Apple explained why it can't do it. Of course when users cry "I want 32GB" or "I want Coffee Lakes" they don't mean "no matter how, even if you just get some duct tape and glue 2 more modules of RAM on the side of the laptop but provide me 32 GB of RAM". So please don't shift it to users. Apple didn't do its work. Users, on the other hand, did - they've paid, they've reviewed, they're furious.I believe the issue lies in both courts, Apple and Intel. Intel is making processors that just aren’t good fits for the thin, “ultraportable” (is “ultraportable” anymore portable than just plain “portable”???), while Apple put them into their laptops without significantly redesigning the cooling system that goes with it.
However, I find it hilarious that all these people on here who are arguing that it is Apple’s fault plain and simple, that Intel didn’t force them to put the chip into their computer... and yet just last month I was reading thread after thread of some of the very same people whining about Apple not using the most up to date CoffeeLake processors. Apple actually was (to a certain degree) forced into using the Coffeelake chips because of the outcry the pro user base was giving over the “crappy” specs of the 2017 lineup... so, yeah I’ll leave that for you, and wait for all the hate replies to start piling up.
You either explain why you can't or you do it normally. Doing bad work and then saying "well, you asked it" is inexcusable.
I agree 100% with this, which is why I stated at the top of my comment that Apple and Intel are both to blame.
I think Apple is just throwing it together as a make shift fix until their 2020 redesign (or whatever year it will be) comes out, which is not right because of the issues these processors are having, but on paper it looks like they are up to spec with everyone else.
Intel delivers the CPU and Apple and all the other Manufactures are responsible for the design of there hardware. Even thinner and lighter MBP's anybody?
It's Apple's incompetence, a lack of quality control.
Scary, considering the amount of profits/resources Apple has.
And a fantastic waste of good silicon.
Hope they stay in the consumer appliances arena before real people get hurt.
Scary, considering the amount of profits/resources Apple has.
And a fantastic waste of good silicon.
Hope they stay in the consumer appliances arena before real people get hurt.
Let's not get carried away.
I think the more likely scenario is that Apple decided that this level of thermal throttling was acceptable for the typical MBPro user.
I think it's a fair statement that the vast, vast, vast majority of MBPro users don't even know what Intel Power Gadget is, or when and how the CPU burst would apply. They like shiny and thin.
I'm not saying that to defend Apple, this is of course Apple's fault, but I think some context is good too. Poor decision IMO, but this seems like a more reasonable scenario than "they didn't test it".
I think the more likely scenario is that Apple decided that this level of thermal throttling was acceptable for the typical MBPro user.
I think it's a fair statement that the vast, vast, vast majority of MBPro users don't even know what Intel Power Gadget is, or when and how the CPU burst would apply. They like shiny and thin.
I'm not saying that to defend Apple, this is of course Apple's fault, but I think some context is good too. Poor decision IMO, but this seems like a more reasonable scenario than "they didn't test it".
Both Apple and intel fault.
Intel as the have released s**y cpu, Apple who decided to release new MacBooks in 2018 instead of waiting for 10nm model.
I can bet they tested those cpus in the lab and have got to the same conclusion as in the benchmarks.
Intel as the have released s**y cpu, Apple who decided to release new MacBooks in 2018 instead of waiting for 10nm model.
I can bet they tested those cpus in the lab and have got to the same conclusion as in the benchmarks.
Well it seems that in the i9's case worse. My 2.2 base model is pulling in some nice scores on cinebench compared to the 2017 MBP.
How is Intel to blame for Apple making laptops so thin and light that it sacrifices performance?
I rather have a thicker macbook pro that can also house a far more powerful GPU then the weak GPU’s that we get.
I rather have a thicker macbook pro that can also house a far more powerful GPU then the weak GPU’s that we get.
I may be far off in saying this, but you can blame apple customers as well. I live in NYC. Every coffee shop I go to there are people on Apple laptops. And surprisingly most of them are on MBP's. Most of these people probably don't use the CPU on their machines to its full potential. They are probably writing or browsing the web and watching youtube videos. Nothing that stresses the machine.
So Apple probably has a ton of statistics based on how most of the MBP's are being used. Probably a small percentage of us will max out the CPU to it's full potential. Apple probably looked at the statistics and decided they could get away with it. I mean look how consumer and prosumer Apple has become over the past 5 years. Coincidentally this became more so after Jobs passed away. Look at the difference in packaging and what's included in the products. It's been "profit over quality" for a long time now.
Even so, I still prefer Apple over most products. It just fits my needs and makes more sense to me. I just wish they would release a machine I feel comfortable spending $5000+ that checks off most of my needs.
So Apple probably has a ton of statistics based on how most of the MBP's are being used. Probably a small percentage of us will max out the CPU to it's full potential. Apple probably looked at the statistics and decided they could get away with it. I mean look how consumer and prosumer Apple has become over the past 5 years. Coincidentally this became more so after Jobs passed away. Look at the difference in packaging and what's included in the products. It's been "profit over quality" for a long time now.
Even so, I still prefer Apple over most products. It just fits my needs and makes more sense to me. I just wish they would release a machine I feel comfortable spending $5000+ that checks off most of my needs.
Last edited:
My guess is it takes Apple much longer than half a year (potentially very much longer) to redesign a chassis.
Add to that their "Anti-Pattern" of "Function follows form" and you've got a perfect storm.
I agree with the notion that Intel is the guilty party and Apple is the accessory.
Add to that their "Anti-Pattern" of "Function follows form" and you've got a perfect storm.
I agree with the notion that Intel is the guilty party and Apple is the accessory.
To add on to what leman said, the i9 can't even maintain its advertised base clock rate in Apple's chassis that has had no problems cooling 45W TDP processors before (and apparently can handle at least the base 2.2 i7 this year).
Right. Apple should have figured out the thermal limitations put on this CPU before shipping them to customers. That is there fault. Its also Intel's fault for making CPUs in the same class that run substantially hotter than before. The problem is consumer expectations. How well do you think it would fly if Apple sticks an i5 in the MacBook Pro, while the XPS and others, get i7s and i9s? How many people are really going to listen to Apple when they say the i5 is just as good because those XPSes and what not are throttling anyway? No, the average, ignorant consumer will think i9 > i7 > i5 and won't even check benchmarks. Apple will lose sales and be criticized for not making a "pro" machine. This doesn't absolve them of fault. I hate the new design and blame that design for this mess. While we won't know for sure, its likely the old chassis would have handled these processors much better than the current one.
This is possible. But I thought the new design already prevented as much cooling through the keyboard?