Streaming 6 simultaneous 4K flash videos is not artificial load?
doesn't Final Cut pro do that? I may take that back, playing back 6 4k streams isn't anything a video editor wouldn't do.
Streaming 6 simultaneous 4K flash videos is not artificial load?
doesn't Final Cut pro do that? I may take that back, playing back 6 4k streams isn't anything a video editor wouldn't do.
Video editing includes playing back several simultaneous local videos, yes. What normal video editing does not include is playing 6 4K flash videos. There's an important distinction there, as playing flash videos uses significantly more CPU power than playing local files does.
No not flash but with filters, it can really intense; dependent on what kind of filters and how many. While not the same exact sort of thing someone will do, it's similar enough that I would recommend it as a suitable benchmark for our purposes. BUT, I may have a found a possible way to throttle the CPU by utilizing the iGPU in the post just prior to this.
Now, the question is, is this a thermal limit or wattage draw limit. Not a physicist or engineer so I'll let you guys figure that out. Have not changed the thermal past yet but hopefully this should help me determine whether or not it'll improve the longevity and/or performance of my machine. Hope my data helps! Let me know if you have any questions about my methods and procedures.
What you have proven is that the MacBook Pro throttles at some point. But so do all computers. Unless there is a way to show that the MacBook Pro throttles more quickly than similarly specced laptops do under the same load, then that information is not very useful.
Mine never throttles below the stated 2.5Ghz specification. Amazing what proper thermal control can do for a system![]()
Your results would only be comparable with calviin's results if your computer were similarly specced to the late 2013 MacBook Pro. Your late 2011 cMBP running at 2.8 GHz is vastly underpowered compared to a late 2013 rMBP with 2GB VRAM running at 2.1 GHz.
Are you stating that you believe a Haswell 2.1 Ghz system to be faster than a 2.8 Ghz Sandy Bridge?
Sandy / Ivy / Haswell Clock for Clock performance
Haswell is, on average in that comparison, ~13% faster than Sandy Bridge clock for clock. Therefore, a 33% faster clocked Sandy Bridge IS faster than Haswell, by approximately 20%.
Now, the GPU (750m vs HD6770M) is a different story.
'Vastly underpowered'? I think not.
What temperatures were you seeing when you were running your machine at max. load?
The overrall system, including PCIe SSDs, faster GPU and faster CPU, is faster than your machine at most tasks -- even at lower clock speeds -- up to a point.
It would be great to have someone who has both systems run an encoding test under the same conditions to see whether or not throttling makes the late 2013 rMBP slower than other machines at certain tasks under normal usage.
Roughly 102-103 degrees Celcius. You can download the Intel PowerGadget logs in the links I submitted above to get a better idea. You'll see that the temps fluctuate a bit.
Hey guys. I can confirm that throttling CAN happen, albeit a very minor amount. I have a late 2013 rMBP 2.3/16/512/750M.
Procedure:
1. Ran yes > /dev//null & eight times, one after another in one window.
2. Ran pmset -g thermlog in the same terminal window.
3. Set gfxCardStatus V2.3 for the Intel iGPU
4. Ran the Intel Power Gadget 2.5.2 (Good find btw! Didn't know such a tool existed!)
5. Ran the Heaven Unigine on Preset Extreme. Downloaded from here (http://unigine.com/products/heaven/download/).
View attachment 453524
CPU_Speed_Limit reaches as low as 60. Based off the calculations given by other posters, my Turbo Boost should be 3.5 GHz. 3.5 GHz * 0.60 =2.1 GHz. Results from both Terminal and the intel Power Gadget show a CPU of 2.1 GHz, where as the CPU should be running at 2.3 Ghz. Now, the question is, is this a thermal limit or wattage draw limit. Not a physicist or engineer so I'll let you guys figure that out. Have not changed the thermal past yet but hopefully this should help me determine whether or not it'll improve the longevity and/or performance of my machine. Hope my data helps! Let me know if you have any questions about my methods and procedures.
.
Mine never throttles below the stated 2.5Ghz specification. Amazing what proper thermal control can do for a system![]()
Did you reapply the thermal paste? If so, what did you use?
Yes, I lapped the heatsink, and applied Arctic Silver 5.
Do you have before and after stats?
You mention you don't have a Mac, so perhaps you're new to Apple.
If so, be aware that you can return a Mac to the store within 14 days.
No need to get someone else to benchmark; 14 days should be enough for you to convince yourself it's workable or not for your workload/workflow.
I appreciate the alternative, though it's not what I asked. An answer to my questions will be much appreciated.
That response is a fast route to not getting any help.
Odd. I wasn't trying to be snappy or rude. My apologies if it seemed that way. I actually appreciated the info as I didn't know about it, but am interested in a reply to the question I asked (which was purely technical).
I had zero intentions to be cocky or demanding, quite the contrary. I believe I already apologized.Imagine standing in front of the poster and saying what you said, I can't imagine it not coming over as rude and arrogant. This isn't apple support (or any other support structure), where you can expect a precise answer to your query as you have somehow paid for it via the product.
As it happens I think he is correct, you would get a much better idea of your workload running on a Mac if you were to run it on a Mac, saying that requires some effort on your part doesn't detract from the fact that it is a better quality solution.
What will you do if you buy and it doesn't run your workload as you expect? Berate your friend?