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

[Queen6]

And where do you want to put the limit? Strictly speaking, running 6 cores at 2.7 Ghz average is a healthy performance increase over running 4 cores at 3.4Ghz. Yes, if you have more thermal headroom, you could get even better performance. So lets drop the 45Watt sustained limit and go for 60W? Or maybe 90W? I think this kind of thinking quickly becomes impractical in mobile space. In the ends, its the same as using desktop-class CPUs in a laptop. Which can be (and has been) done, but is situational.

But its as you say, we have more flexibility now and laptop makers have more freedom in adjusting performance increases by tweaking their cooling system.

And by the way, on the point that Apple should have put more emphasis on the cooling system we can totally agree. It always makes sense to improve thermals, under any circumstances. If there are newer, better technologies available, then they probably should be using them.

Plus 3GHz on all six cores as a minimum for sustained loads, which is more then reasonable...

Q-6

 

[limo79]

here you go apple i9 cooling solution . you are welcome.

View attachment 771972

No one force Apple to put i9 CPU into 15" MBP enclosure. Intel sells the chip and it is up the Apple engineers how they tune it to give best results and how you design cooling system and chassis. Sadly results set by customers after setting TDP limit are significantly better (without changing fan settings and voltages) and what is more important stable so someone from Apple chose bad variant so managers took decisions that do not address customers needs. In the past they can put such CPU into 17 inch unit which was more safe. Now they loose mind.
I can blame Intel only for bugs like Spectre/Meltdown and I am sure that they know potential weaknesses of design long time ago. Also for delaying roadmap and not keeping milestones to generate more money (cannot believe that they still have so many problems with 10nm process).

 

[throAU]

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.

How long it takes Apple to design a chassis is Apple's problem. It should not be the customer's problem, as it is, in this case.
[doublepost=1532311455][/doublepost]

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.

It is not "impossible to cool so that it runs to spec". Other laptop vendors have it maintaining base clock (which is what clockspeed it is designed to maintain unless even better cooling is available) just fine.

Running 6 cores at 4.8 ghz needs 100+ watts of power. This has been clear with the desktop parts, it is clear with Ryzen, it should have been clear with testing.

The i9 laptop processor isn't some magical unicorn chip made of pixie dust and unobtainium. Other OEMs put R&D into cooling. Apple did not.
[doublepost=1532311617][/doublepost]

The documentation is available in public domain. It states that the laptop only needs to provide 45W of cooling power in order for the CPU to work properly.

To maintain base clock.

If you ramp clocks up further than that in 45 watt thermal solution until the CPU gets too hot, guess what? That heat needs to drop, and the only way to do that is to run less than the 45 watt TDP (I.e., drop to below base clock) for some time in order to do so - maintaining base clock at that point with such a marginal cooling solution will keep the heat up there at that same level.

This is the result of inadequate testing, pure and simple. If apple wanted to run this thing at no faster than base clock ever, then the 45 watt cooling solution would be fine.


edit:
Getting real tempted to just get a razor for my next portable.

 

[dallas112678]

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.

Because Apple is the one that designed themselves into a corner trying to make a "pro" laptop needlessly thin which naturally makes it not able to handle the heat very well.

Pretty obvious really.

Oh, and yes, there are other laptops with the i9 that are still very thin and light which can handle the heat much better and requiring much less throttling. Those companies didn't decide to design themselves into a corner and actually remembered that high performance components tend to run hitter than mainstream components.

 

[mrex]

Because Apple is the one that designed themselves into a corner trying to make a "pro" laptop needlessly thin which naturally makes it not able to handle the heat very well.

it is not only that they couldnt handle the heat and cool the system (enough), but also because they have made them to be quiet althought the system is already warming (too) much. this pretty much summarizes the first problem with heat:

 

[winterny]

it is not only that they couldnt handle the heat and cool the system (enough), but also because they have made them to be quiet althought the system is already warming (too) much. this pretty much summarizes the first problem with heat:

The Macbook and Macbook Pro are different. On the Pro, the fans are always spinning on the Pro as long as the system is on/not sleeping.

 

[leman]

To maintain base clock.

If you ramp clocks up further than that in 45 watt thermal solution until the CPU gets too hot, guess what? That heat needs to drop, and the only way to do that is to run less than the 45 watt TDP (I.e., drop to below base clock) for some time in order to do so - maintaining base clock at that point with such a marginal cooling solution will keep the heat up there at that same level.

I think both you and Queen are a bit greedy here The problem of course is that the concept to turbo boost spoils people — they forget that its just an opportunistic feature and the nobody guarantees yo that the turbo will be maintained for prolonged periods of time. Of course, you can design a cooling solution that will maintain higher turbo rates indefinitely, but then you are essentially designing for a desktop CPU in a laptop. Might as well taken a 60W desktop Coffee Lake instead.

Anyway, ekwipt shows quite convincingly that the problem is not CPU heat dissipation but rather, voltage regulators overheating. I suppose you already saw this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...es-engineering-f.2128936/page-2#post-26276414 It seems that the default settings on these CPUs assume that the laptop can deliver steady 100W of power (not dissipate it, mind, thats a different thing!) which the MBP can't do. So you get power throttling, which is consistent with the results seen so far.

 

[mrex]

The Macbook and Macbook Pro are different. On the Pro, the fans are always spinning on the Pro as long as the system is on/not sleeping.

That is the mbp (tb) on the vid. How many "MacBooks" have two fans, one on the left and one the right?

 

[Nozuka]

Can this topic be closed? I feel like it's not adding anything to the other throttling topics, except maybe a provoking title.

 

[Cuniac]

Dude, No..... This is not Intel's fault. This would be like putting a commercial oven in a 300sqft apartment and blaming the oven manufacturer for making it to hot in there. Just because a company makes something powerful, like the mobile i9, does not mean its for everything. If you had a bug in your house would you use a bazooka to kill it? Why not? Bazookas are made to kill things right, so you should be able to use it! And if it blows up part of your house then you can blame the bazooka manufacture. Come on now, this statement is just silly.

Intel made 6-core i7s and the enthusiast i9 CPUs for mobile devices, just like a car company would make engiens for cars. The i9 is like a V12 and Apple is trying to shove that into a Geo Metro and think everything would be ok. These chips get hot and maybe they need to be in a 12lbs laptop in order to get the proper cooling so they can run at 100% with out issue. And thats ok! Thats the platform they were meant for. Any maker of an Ultrabook wether it be Apple, Razer, Dell anyone that tries to put this CPU in that small of an area is doing it just to say they did it.

Apple is not a dumb company. They know most people are going to see 6-cores or oooo an i9, and run out and buy one. Most people are not going to be checking the temps, hell Apples own Activity monitor does not show what frequency its currently running at let alone temperatures. If you want to see that you have to install 3rd party apps, and most people wont. People that bought last years are probably not going to upgrade again a year later to notice its not faster, and people 2+years ago will notice a boost in performance but only because its an much older system.

The fact Apple does not even offer a thicker MacBook to house a CPU of this caliber or even a decent GPU for that matter, is insane. They haven't upgraded the MacMini in 4years, The Mac Pro in 5 Years, Last years "update" to the MacBook Air was to a 2 year old (at that time) CPU. They know what they are doing, they do it well and sadly thats to make money rather than giving the customer what they want and with as little effort as possible. The iMac Pro was the best thing they have done computer wise in the last decade and they probably wont upgrade it for another 5 years at this rate.

 

[leman]

Intel made 6-core i7s and the enthusiast i9 CPUs for mobile devices, just like a car company would make engiens for cars. The i9 is like a V12 and Apple is trying to shove that into a Geo Metro and think everything would be ok. These chips get hot and maybe they need to be in a 12lbs laptop in order to get the proper cooling so they can run at 100% with out issue. And thats ok! Thats the platform they were meant for. Any maker of an Ultrabook wether it be Apple, Razer, Dell anyone that tries to put this CPU in that small of an area is doing it just to say they did it.

The might be true, but Intel sells this as a drop-in replacement for any other quad core or 6 core CPU. After all, Intel thermal specs don't make any difference between the i5, i7 or i9. I understand very well what you are saying, but wouldn't it make more sense to sell this CPU as a 55W or a 60W part and not a 45W one? Because it does create false expectations, and it does mess things up for everyone.

Imagine what would happen if Apple said "our laptops can't provide enough power to make proper use of the i9, so lets skip it". These forums would be full of posts bashing Apple for hating the pros and not using the i9 and instead praising Dell (who have same problems btw) for offering the option.

 

[The Mercurian]

The might be true, but Intel sells this as a drop-in replacement for any other quad core or 6 core CPU. After all, Intel thermal specs don't make any difference between the i5, i7 or i9. I understand very well what you are saying, but wouldn't it make more sense to sell this CPU as a 55W or a 60W part and not a 45W one? Because it does create false expectations, and it does mess things up for everyone.

Imagine what would happen if Apple said "our laptops can't provide enough power to make proper use of the i9, so lets skip it". These forums would be full of posts bashing Apple for hating the pros and not using the i9 and instead praising Dell (who have same problems btw) for offering the option.

Regardless of what intel says - I'd still expect Apple to test it and not just take their word for it. Its not like they are stuck for the cash!!

 

[maflynn]

Imagine what would happen if Apple said "our laptops can't provide enough power to make proper use of the i9, so lets skip it". These forums would be full of posts bashing Apple for hating the pros and not using the i9 and instead praising Dell (who have same problems btw) for offering the option.

I've said that in the past, if Apple chose not to release an i9, the amount of screaming and gnashing of teeth would be epic, yet that doesn't excuse Apple from tweaking the setup of the laptop and chipset to work optimally in the small and thin case.

Given how we have some very workable solutions to minimize or largely mitigate the problem with adjusting the voltage or wattage, its seems Apple dropped the ball on doing something similar, i.e., finding a good balance of power, performance and acceptable temperatures.

 

[Cuniac]

The might be true, but Intel sells this as a drop-in replacement for any other quad core or 6 core CPU. After all, Intel thermal specs don't make any difference between the i5, i7 or i9. I understand very well what you are saying, but wouldn't it make more sense to sell this CPU as a 55W or a 60W part and not a 45W one? Because it does create false expectations, and it does mess things up for everyone.

Imagine what would happen if Apple said "our laptops can't provide enough power to make proper use of the i9, so lets skip it". These forums would be full of posts bashing Apple for hating the pros and not using the i9 and instead praising Dell (who have same problems btw) for offering the option.

Thats not entirely accurate. The previous gen i7s and even the 6-core i7's here have a Configurable TDP-down* of 35W. Meaning that the system can say your running to hot lets lower you from 45w to 35w allowing the system to remain cooler and lessen the change of a Hard (800Mhz) thermal throttle. the i9 does not have that option, it needs a consistant 45w. Because of this, this chip is already designed to run hotter than the other ones and why even the i7 6-cores are running better than the i9. Apple may have overlooked this bit of information.

*Configurable TDP-down is a processor operating mode where the processor behavior and performance is modified by lowering TDP and the processor frequency to fixed points. The use of Configurable TDP-down is typically executed by the system manufacturer to optimize power and performance. Configurable TDP-down is the average power, in watts, that the processor dissipates when operating at the Configurable TDP-down frequency under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload.

 

[leman]

Thats not entirely accurate. The previous gen i7s and even the 6-core i7's here have a Configurable TDP-down* of 35W. Meaning that the system can say your running to hot lets lower you from 45w to 35w allowing the system to remain cooler and lessen the change of a Hard (800Mhz) thermal throttle. the i9 does not have that option, it needs a consistant 45w. Because of this, this chip is already designed to run hotter than the other ones and why even the i7 6-cores are running better than the i9. Apple may have overlooked this bit of information.

I don't think that cTDP-down has any relevance here. Its an option that a manufacturer can choose, but doesn't have to (and btw, you can set i9 to 35W TDP using CPU's machine specific registers). Besides, Apple never used it. What they do is remove restrictions on the CPU TDP (e.g. setting it to arbitrary high number, e.g. 100W) and letting the heat be the limiting factor. And this worked quite well until now. The problem of the i9 is not really that it runs too hot — its that it needs more power than the laptop can provide, overheating the power delivery system (this is probably where the 800Mhz throttle comes from — its not CPU thermal throttle!).
[doublepost=1532344986][/doublepost]

Regardless of what intel says - I'd still expect Apple to test it and not just take their word for it. Its not like they are stuck for the cash!!

Given how we have some very workable solutions to minimize or largely mitigate the problem with adjusting the voltage or wattage, its seems Apple dropped the ball on doing something similar, i.e., finding a good balance of power, performance and acceptable temperatures.

Oh, I agree. Its blatant carelessness. They should have caught this and they should have known that their TDP configuration won't work with Coffee Lake and the MBP power delivery. Its similar to that time when one could get admin access without a password because (most likely) a programmer forgot to remove a debug condition from production code.

 

[maflynn]

Its similar to that time when one could get admin access without a password because (most likely) a programmer forgot to remove a debug condition from production code.

I largely agree, but this issue seems a little more up front and visible then leaving some debug code in, where in some scenarios security is comprised. In this issue, just using the laptop as designed appears to show throttling.

 

[leman]

I largely agree, but this issue seems a little more up front and visible then leaving some debug code in, where in some scenarios security is comprised. In this issue, just using the laptop as designed appears to show throttling.

I can imagine scenarios where automated testing could have missed it (e.g. if one looks at average frequency and does not study the frequency variation. Or maybe they didn't test for it at all. Anyway, its sloppy sloppy sloppy.

 

[The Mercurian]

I can imagine scenarios where automated testing could have missed it (e.g. if one looks at average frequency and does not study the frequency variation. Or maybe they didn't test for it at all. Anyway, its sloppy sloppy sloppy.

Apparently Apple never reined in those values on previous machines - someone posted in the other thread where there 2013 MBA had the same settings! It seems to be just the first time that the settings really matter! Not that that is any excuse!

 

[leman]

Apparently Apple never reined in those values on previous machines - someone posted in the other thread where there 2013 MBA had the same settings! It seems to be just the first time that the settings really matter! Not that that is any excuse!

Yeah, that is my guess too Just wrote this few min ago in another thread:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...es-engineering-f.2128936/page-3#post-26276799

 

[maflynn]

Apparently Apple never reined in those values on previous machines - someone posted in the other thread where there 2013 MBA had the same settings! It seems to be just the first time that the settings really matter! Not that that is any excuse!

That actually makes it worse, since it shows an even higher degree of callous disregard.
[doublepost=1532346525][/doublepost]

I can imagine scenarios where automated testing could have missed it (e.g. if one looks at average frequency and does not study the frequency variation. Or maybe they didn't test for it at all. Anyway, its sloppy sloppy sloppy.

Obviously that's what happened, but it truely boggles the mind that it did happen, especially for a company that touts itself for producing machines that with highest design tolerances and highest quality

 

[leman]

That actually makes it worse, since it shows an even higher degree of callous disregard.

Hey, it’s a feature until it becomes a bug there are good reasons why these values were in place. It did give Apple an edge in CPU performance.

 

[maflynn]

Hey, it’s a feature until it becomes a bug there are good reasons why these values were in place. It did give Apple an edge in CPU performance.

I used to be a developer (now a sysadmin) and we used to call bugs, undocumented features

 

[groove-agent]

I see what you're saying, but Apple chose to perpetuate a thin chassis and cram a high performance i9 in it. Look at the new Razer 15" laptop which is still pretty thick to handle the thermals - and yet no i9 option. I don't know why Apple would even consider an i9 in these laptops.

Also I doubt Intel would lose business from Apple to AMD. Anyone who has spent any time on this website would know that they're planning to switch to their own A series processors if a processor switch was to occur.

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.

 

[leman]

Look at the new Razer 15" laptop which is still pretty thick to handle the thermals - and yet no i9 option.

Razer always offered only lower-end CPUs (from the performance segment). I guess its a way to save costs.

I don't know why Apple would even consider an i9 in these laptops.

I would speculate its because Apple always offered higher-end CPUs. For last few years, Intel offered three performance tiers of i7 mobile CPUs. This year, they only offer two, and position the i9 as a (much more aggressively clocked) high-end option. And since competitors offer this CPU as an option, for Apple to skip it would probably cause even more criticism. Its this kind of situation where any choice you do ends up biting you.

 

[DeepIn2U]

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.

Well spoken.

Taken into account Spectre and that other cpu code flare up along with Intel mentioning their running into a brick wall the Lowe the lithography gets (mentioned publicly I think at 20nm) Intel has had trouble indeed ramping up performance.

OS X, yes OS X has done exactly what Jobs stated and what his original NeXT engineering team did when creating OSX - Tevanian Avi, Bertrand Serley, etc. We’re getting very close to the 20yr mark for OS X great existence.

After 2020/2021 Apple should be close to readying a new OS architecture - this time with HUGE insights to battery life, compute performance, UI layout and redesign, and the huge experiences learned from iPhone and iPad. AppleTV and HomeKit have done well.

OS X began with processor agnostic! I’m not sure just what the IntEl deal Apple made with respect to using their chips yet I expect an incredible shift in processor development and choosing by Apple.

How is AMDs performance per watt; or processor efficiency under little to heavy load and affecting power drain??