Sidebar Sidebar
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.

The MacBook Pro starts at $2,400 but Apple couldn't be bothered to use a copper-finned heatsink. The USB-C power adapter now uses a plastic connector instead of metal.

That tells you all you need to know about Apple's priorities.

Apple is first in line and receives hundreds of early engineering samples from Intel so they can design a proper cooling solution. Instead, they decide to cheap out using aluminum heatsinks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU and haruhiko
Amazing how many people can't tell their arse from their elbow on this forum.

Do you all need Sarcasm really pointed out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haruhiko
UBS28 said:
That is no excuse.

That is like Bugatti putting a 1000 hp engine but not putting in the proper cooling in their car because nobody will drive 400km/h in real life.
Click to expand...

I think this is a Apple Car with a cover on, skip to 1m 30s:
 
  • Like
Reactions: gpat
roland.g said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but these machines are marketed and priced for professional users, those that do video editing and other tasks that will inevitably require sustained CPU loads. Apple is 100% to blame. They deserve to lose sales from this, and they will. I for one am going no where near these 2018 models and instead will wait to see what is available next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU, ugru, Kevinfinity and 2 others
Blue Sun said:
Yes, but these machines are marketed and priced for professional users, those that do video editing and other tasks that will inevitably require sustained CPU loads. Apple is 100% to blame. They deserve to lose sales from this, and they will. I for one am going no where near these 2018 models and instead will wait to see what is available next year.
Click to expand...

I do not and will never understand the reflexive, compulsive need some people have to make excuses for this multi-hundred-billion-dollar company.

It's like watching someone in an abusive relationship blame themselves for the beatings.

I think I'm guilty of it myself at times.

For instance, I have a $2,000+ notebook with a keyboard I can't trust, because it has just randomly stopped working right more than once in the past, so I have to carry a Bluetooth keyboard with me everywhere I travel with it, and I just do it.

I should demand better. We all should.

And we damned well shouldn't pay Apple $300 for an "upgraded" processor that runs boiling hot at less than its advertised speeds and then blame ourselves and each other for using it wrong or having too-high expectations.

A 2.9Ghz - 4.8Ghz CPU should perform consistently at a minimum of 2.9Ghz. Anything else is unacceptable.​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: throAU, macjunk(ie), ugru and 3 others
Mockletoy said:
I do not and will never understand the reflexive, compulsive need some people have to make excuses for this multi-hundred-billion-dollar company.

It's like watching someone in an abusive relationship blame themselves for the beatings.

I think I'm guilty of it myself at times.

For instance, I have a $2,000+ notebook with a keyboard I can't trust, because it has just randomly stopped working right more than once in the past, so I have to carry a Bluetooth keyboard with me everyone I travel with it, and I just do it.

I should demand better. We all should.

And we damned well shouldn't pay Apple $300 for an "upgraded" processor that runs boiling hot at less than its advertised speeds and then blame ourselves and each other for using it wrong or having too-high expectations.

A 2.9Ghz - 4.8Ghz CPU should perform consistently at a minimum of 2.9Ghz. Anything else is unacceptable.​
Click to expand...

I know man, their cash pile is big enough to RnD a cure for cancer, let alone a new cooling solution.

And yet people defend them, madness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU, macjunk(ie), The Mercurian and 2 others
I
Blue Sun said:
Yes, but these machines are marketed and priced for professional users, those that do video editing and other tasks that will inevitably require sustained CPU loads. Apple is 100% to blame. They deserve to lose sales from this, and they will. I for one am going no where near these 2018 models and instead will wait to see what is available next year.
Click to expand...
Including intel as well.
 
I don't think it is Intel's fault. But it is neither Apple's. When the i9 is using more than 50W it is clear that the cooling system of the MBP is not capable of handling it, whereas bulkier systems do. They never advertised the laptop as capable of competing with other computers with the same i9 CPU. And for the average that is only maxing out all the cores for few seconds, the i9 does provide better performance. $300 better? That depends on the user.
 
Painter2002 said:
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”
Click to expand...

ridiculous statement to blame intel unless intel guided apple making too thin chassis.

i blame my grocery store because i dont fit my jeans anymore, because they sell food more than i need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tubeexperience, Howard2k and macjunk(ie)
DjanSeriyAnaplian said:
I know man, their cash pile is big enough to RnD a cure for cancer, let alone a new cooling solution.

And yet people defend them, madness.
Click to expand...

They are a profit driven company with investors that require profitable activities and are not interested in them loosing money so that a few people on a forum would finally be happy. Changing the MacBook Pro design is still not in the roadmap, and this design was made with the assumption that by the time 6-core CPUs hit the market, Intel would have switched to 10nm process. This is the same 14nm as last year, but with 2 more cores, and Intel is being desperate here. Instead of tick-tock, we're getting tick-tock-tock-tock.... and that is the real problem. This is not defending Apple, this is just being realistic.

MacBook Pros perform very nice for a laptop of their size. One thing I agree with Queen6 is - if you really need maxed out i9 performance, get a bigger laptop. But most people here don't really need more, heck, they likely don't even need i9s, and yet they are angry "out of principle". I find that ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerryk, MRrainer and HenryDJP
aevan said:
They are a profit driven company with investors that require profitable activities and are not interested in them loosing money so that a few people on a forum would finally be happy. Changing the MacBook Pro design is still not in the roadmap, and this design was made with the assumption that by the time 6-core CPUs hit the market, Intel would have switched to 10nm process. This is the same 14nm as last year, but with 2 more cores, and Intel is being desperate here. Instead of tick-tock, we're getting tick-tock-tock-tock.... and that is the real problem. This is not defending Apple, this is just being realistic.

MacBook Pros perform very nice for a laptop of their size. One thing I agree with Queen6 is - if you really need maxed out i9 performance, get a bigger laptop. But most people here don't really need more, heck, they likely don't even need i9s, and yet they are angry "out of principle". I find that ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yeh sorry, but it's not acceptable to misrepresent the position of a product so badly it essentially amounts to a fraud on release - whatever the reasons may be, it's simply not good enough for the most valuable company in the world. Further, it's not conducive to long-term growth if, every time you release a product, there is something inherently wrong with it.

That sort of short-term thinking is something that I wouldn't have associated Apple with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
Wait, so Intel is to blame for Apple not running their own benchmarks and certifying their own equipment? Intel is to blame for Apple not using sufficient cooling so the chips don't thermal throttle?

Tell me more OP
 
  • Like
Reactions: tubeexperience and throAU
The more I think about it, the more I do believe Intel has to bear some responsibility. Its true that the buck stops at apple in the sense of them releasing the laptop, but it seems every computer maker is having issues with coffee lake and heat evacuation. There are those companies that have successfully rolled out a coffee lake laptop that doesn't throttle or get too hot, but the clear majority are running so hot that owners have to deal with undervolting and other tasks, I highlighted the success Razer has with its vaper chamber, yet I still had to undervolt and in number of situations I disabled Turbo Boost. There wee also reports of other people with the Razer who complained that the keyboard palm rest got too hot to touch.

Let me be clear, however, Apple being a premium company should not have rolled out a laptop that by default runs slower then the prior generation but Intel in the zeal to compete against AMD over-extended the performance at the cost of excessive heat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Painter2002
mrex said:
ridiculous statement to blame intel unless intel guided apple making too thin chassis.

i blame my grocery store because i dont fit my jeans anymore, because they sell food more than i need.
Click to expand...
But you’re missing my point. I clearly stated that the blame lies in both courts, Intel is lagging behind in the chip industry. There is new technology that can make better chips that don’t create so much heat, but instead of doing that Intel is just releasing “more powerful” chips that are being marketed for portable laptops that simply can’t handle heat.

Sure Apple isn’t guided by Intel to make their laptops so thin, but in general the laptop market has been getting thinner and thinner. Apple isn’t the only one who struggles with getting these chips to work in their current laptop. Intel needs to step up their game on making 10nm chips that don’t have heat issues to begin with.

But ultimately, yes, Apple is to blame for putting a chip in their machines without redoing the cooling properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryDJP and Falhófnir
Intel releases the processor and says here you go. It's up to everyone else to figure out the cooling, but Intel should not make it impossible to be cooled so it runs to spec.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryDJP
maflynn said:
The more I think about it, the more I do believe Intel has to bear some responsibility. Its true that the buck stops at apple in the sense of them releasing the laptop, but it seems every computer maker is having issues with coffee lake and heat evacuation. There are those companies that have successfully rolled out a coffee lake laptop that doesn't throttle or get too hot, but the clear majority are running so hot that owners have to deal with undervolting and other tasks, I highlighted the success Razer has with its vaper chamber, yet I still had to undervolt and in number of situations I disabled Turbo Boost. There wee also reports of other people with the Razer who complained that the keyboard palm rest got too hot to touch.

Let me be clear, however, Apple being a premium company should not have rolled out a laptop that by default runs slower then the prior generation but Intel in the zeal to compete against AMD over-extended the performance at the cost of excessive heat.
Click to expand...

Don't overthink it :p The more I think about things, the more I start to doubt...
 
aevan said:
Nothing about this is fraud. You just had unrealistic expectations.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what the definition of fraud is. While it would be impossible to establish a dishonest intention, Apple is marketing a product that cannot do what it, prima facie, represents itself capable of doing.

The fact that you can't establish this mental link is your problem, not mine.
 
Both sides are to blame. Intel should've told apple that a new chassies/cases is required for the new processors and Apple should've listened and re-designed the chassis/case with consideration with heat.

But I think this shows that Apple is preparing to move away from Intel processors in a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryDJP and Painter2002
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back