So pissed off at apple...ridiculous.

[KarmaRocket]

The only way to reach the "full potential of the i9" (meaning to run it as a 130Watt desktop CPU) is to put it into a significantly larger chassis. That simply won't happen with Apple. And I start getting tired of pointing out that the i9 on the MBP reaches all its advertised spec: it runs at 4.6Ghz single-core turbo and at or above 2.9Ghz multi-threaded. Yes, a large gaming laptop twice the size and weight will perform 20-30% better. If you are interested in that kind of machine, get a large workstation.

How do you know "That simply won't happen with Apple" releasing a MBP with a significantly larger chassis? Do you brunch with Tim Cook every weekend? With Apple letting users replace the battery in the Macbook Air, it seems Apple is somewhat open to criticism and making changes. Will they make a larger MBP with better cooling? I don't know, but can I at least hope they will?

I understand the i9 in the MBP I own is not a desktop and if I was looking for a workstation I would have bought one. I never said I wanted desktop performance in a laptop. However, when I'm rendering 4K video and I hear the fans blowing and my MBP gets really hot, I can see it's being throttled significantly. My argument is that I just want a larger chassis so we can get better cooling and longer sustained turbo. Just because it runs on it's "advertised spec" doesn't mean it can't run potentially better. Sorry if that makes you feel like pointing out how wrong I am.

 

[koyoot]

How do you know "That simply won't happen with Apple" releasing a MBP with a significantly larger chassis? Do you brunch with Tim Cook every weekend? With Apple letting users replace the battery in the Macbook Air, it seems Apple is somewhat open to criticism and making changes. Will they make a larger MBP with better cooling? I don't know, but can I at least hope they will?

I understand the i9 in the MBP I own is not a desktop and if I was looking for a workstation I would have bought one. I never said I wanted desktop performance in a laptop. However, when I'm rendering 4K video and I hear the fans blowing and my MBP gets really hot, I can see it's being throttled significantly. My argument is that I just want a larger chassis so we can get better cooling and longer sustained turbo. Just because it runs on it's "advertised spec" doesn't mean it can't run potentially better. Sorry if that makes you feel like pointing out how wrong I am.

You will not see a difference in throttling, for very simple reason.

CPUs and GPUs in MacBook Throttle because of insufficient power delivery, not the not adequate cooling. The cooling is perfectly capable of dissipating 45W of heat from the CPU and 35W from the GPU. You can perfectly well run 45W CPUs with just Arctic Alpine AM4/Alpine 12 Passive heatsinks:

This little thing is capable of running 35W TDP CPU under full load at 56 degrees celsius with just two fans in the case, running at stock, slow RPM.

Apple MacBook Pros do not have a problem with cooling, guys. Its the power that is insufficient, thanks to power hungry Core i7's and Core i9's, alongside the need to power all of the rest of the computer.

 

[iPhonagain]

Yeah I've gotten a headache from all this and decided to just accept the fact that eventually my machine will get outdated. I don't have a workflow that necessarily needs the power of that Radeon Pro Vega 20 GPU over the Radeon Pro 560x because I just use my machine for school, software development (the i9 was a good investment for that) and light gaming.

Honestly it would just be a hassle to me to return my MBP, wait for the refresh with the new GPUs, pay the difference in pricing and wait for the new MBP to ship to me anyways because I need my laptop for school. Plus, I got it with the student promotion so i would probably have to return my beats lol.

It's also reassuring to also think that I can just get an eGPU box if I really wanted more power if I needed it (I could get the power of a proper GTX 1070 or Vega 56 which would demolish the Vega 20) anyways. I just kind of feel bad for the professionals doing intensive graphics work who completely maxed out their MBPs with 4TB or 2TB SSDs who were hit by this news because it sucks and the only people who really feel it are the people who invested the big coin.

People can always get an external GPU nowadays if they need serious horsepower, which is an improvement over any built-in graphics chip. I'm old enough now that I know whenever I buy anything new to just expect it to be outdated within a week or so and just be chill about it. Even though it sucks so bad.....

 

[leman]

How do you know "That simply won't happen with Apple" releasing a MBP with a significantly larger chassis? Do you brunch with Tim Cook every weekend? With Apple letting users replace the battery in the Macbook Air, it seems Apple is somewhat open to criticism and making changes. Will they make a larger MBP with better cooling? I don't know, but can I at least hope they will?

First, Apple never showed any interest whatsoever in making a large workstation-class laptop in the last 20 years. That would be agains the company's fundamental vision for mobile computing. Which again, hasn't changed a bit in the last 20+ years. Second, Apple is not letting users replace the battery in the MBA. They are merely making batteries easier to replace by the technician.

In the end, what you are asking for is a larger mobile chassis that provides desktop-class cooling. I simply don't believe that Apple is interested in making such a product. And these days there is less incentive in doing it than ever before. Mobile CPUs and GPUs are now much closer to their desktop counterparts than even ten years ago and the computing power is through the roof. With mobile Vega Apple will have a 3 GFLOPs GPU in the same thin and light chassis. And external GPUs push it even further. You can see it everywhere in the industry. There are almost no 17" laptops left, by a very rare exceptions, and the remaining behemoths are specialised devices with a narrow focus. Apple's own 17" model was discontinued since it didn't see enough sales. Why would Apple reintroduce the laptop they already discontinued based on its lacklustre product performance?

In the end, Apple's logic was this: if what they put in the MBP is really not enough for you, then you really need a proper system (that would be a Mac Pro). Other manufacturers disagree, and that's why they make beefy "desktop-replacement" style laptops. My main point is that Apple is not one of those manufacturers though.

However, when I'm rendering 4K video and I hear the fans blowing and my MBP gets really hot

Which is very normal and expected for a laptop that size and weight that delivers this kind of performance.

I can see it's being throttled significantly.

Does the CPU or the GPU run way below their base frequency when on full load? If not, then it's not throttling.

My argument is that I just want a larger chassis so we can get better cooling and longer sustained turbo. Just because it runs on it's "advertised spec" doesn't mean it can't run potentially better. Sorry if that makes you feel like pointing out how wrong I am.

Why would you be wrong? Your desire for a more powerful machine is understandable, and there is certainly nothing wrong with having such a desire. There is a certain contradiction in what you are saying, sure — first you say that you are not looking for a desktop-level performance in a laptop, and then you say that you want your laptop to run above the specs set by the CPU manufacturer for the mobile platform. It's either the one or the other. If you want your laptop to run cooly and quietly AND above its nominal spec, then you ARE asking for a desktop-class performance.

P.S. By the way, the i9 in my MBP is able to maintain 3.2Ghz in heavy sustained multi-threaded workout, which puts it at the same level as the desktop spec for that CPU (i7-8700).

 

[KarmaRocket]

First, Apple never showed any interest whatsoever in making a large workstation-class laptop in the last 20 years. That would be agains the company's fundamental vision for mobile computing. Which again, hasn't changed a bit in the last 20+ years. Second, Apple is not letting users replace the battery in the MBA. They are merely making batteries easier to replace by the technician.

In the end, what you are asking for is a larger mobile chassis that provides desktop-class cooling. I simply don't believe that Apple is interested in making such a product. And these days there is less incentive in doing it than ever before. Mobile CPUs and GPUs are now much closer to their desktop counterparts than even ten years ago and the computing power is through the roof. With mobile Vega Apple will have a 3 GFLOPs GPU in the same thin and light chassis. And external GPUs push it even further. You can see it everywhere in the industry. There are almost no 17" laptops left, by a very rare exceptions, and the remaining behemoths are specialised devices with a narrow focus. Apple's own 17" model was discontinued since it didn't see enough sales. Why would Apple reintroduce the laptop they already discontinued based on its lacklustre product performance?

In the end, Apple's logic was this: if what they put in the MBP is really not enough for you, then you really need a proper system (that would be a Mac Pro). Other manufacturers disagree, and that's why they make beefy "desktop-replacement" style laptops. My main point is that Apple is not one of those manufacturers though.


Which is very normal and expected for a laptop that size and weight that delivers this kind of performance.


Does the CPU or the GPU run way below their base frequency when on full load? If not, then it's not throttling.



Why would you be wrong? Your desire for a more powerful machine is understandable, and there is certainly nothing wrong with having such a desire. There is a certain contradiction in what you are saying, sure — first you say that you are not looking for a desktop-level performance in a laptop, and then you say that you want your laptop to run above the specs set by the CPU manufacturer for the mobile platform. It's either the one or the other. If you want your laptop to run cooly and quietly AND above its nominal spec, then you ARE asking for a desktop-class performance.

P.S. By the way, the i9 in my MBP is able to maintain 3.2Ghz in heavy sustained multi-threaded workout, which puts it at the same level as the desktop spec for that CPU (i7-8700).

You make some good points. Thanks for not making this into a pointless argument (which kind of happens a lot in MR). Didn't mean to sound like an ass in my last reply. Wasn't intentional but reading it again I can see why someone would.

 

[Thysanoptera]

The cooling is perfectly capable of dissipating 45W of heat from the CPU AND 35W from the GPU.

It should be OR

The GPU and CPU are connected by heatpipe, they heat each other up. And I just actually checked this myself now, MBP is thermally limited, not power. I've run Heaven and Primes at the same time, system was pulling 100W total, for a long time, like almost a full minute (I was surprised), until CPU temps hit 100C, and then it throttled to about 85W. This was with 555x and 2.2 with 100W PSU.

To stay on topic and avoid mod cleansing V2: Vega mobile will pull more power if Apple wants to show 60%. Big Vega is maybe 10% more power efficient than Polaris performance wise, you can squeeze 42W out of GPU, but at this stage the idle CPU temp would be over 80C, probably close to 90C. (idle CPU temp is at 60C with 555x@34W, 75C with 560x@38W - and that's because of mere 4W difference of GPU power draw - at the same fan rpms), effectively making it impossible to do anything other than pure GPU task.

Thus I wouldn't cut your Apple club membership card just yet. Vega Pro 20 will be beneficial to those who for some reason run heavy fp16 based compute tasks on slim laptop and not on server farm (and I bet this is the type of benchmark Apple is using to justify 60%), but for the rest of us it shouldn't make that much of a difference, probably like going from 555 to 560, but a lot closer to thermal limit. I'm really, really not buying that it will be over 60% more power efficient in general. I'm a pessimist (or rather - realist) until proven otherwise.

 

[Ploki]

The White iPhone 4 DID happen, I had one, albeit several months after the initial launch.

MacBook Pros have, despite their name, never been "pro" machines...

No can do. Everyone and their sister knows that Apple has a partnership with AMD (so the "secret" would have been blown through such a hint), and such an announcement would have hurt their initial sales because at least some people who don't breathe roadmaps and upgrades would have possibly delayed their purchase, ultimately hurting Apple's bottom line, and Tim Cook is a Finance guy who will not halt projects out of idealism like Steve did. Unfortunately, I guess it had to be an "all or nothing" policy in this case. I would have been upset myself in your situation I reckon, but it has already happened in the past with Apple.



Leaving aside the upcoming GPU upgrade: if it is such terrible and outdated technology, why did you buy it then?

1) Almost a year after launch? Well it was announced much prior...

2) Premium then - 5,3k for a laptop certain warrants a certain level of support.

3) I waited 2 years for an upgrade from my 2012 15" which was not powerful enough for my tasks anymore. I buy for 4-6 years and that's why I buy upped specs. I bought it because i didnt know that in a month a better option would be available...
I also bought it with the conviction that it would work properly which it doesn't, so there's that.

 

[marc_b]

If you're buying with having in mind letting it outlast 4-6 years of hardware updates in new releases, I don't really get why you're panicking because the first hardware update happens sooner than anticipated. You were obviously not worried about having the newest hardware for years.

 

[_Kiki_]

Don't buy this T2 scrap even with Vega, it's not worth the hassle, few grams of cooper heatsink, total joke

 

[leman]

The GPU and CPU are connected by heatpipe, they heat each other up.

Very true! Neither the CPU nor the GPU can boost much (or at all) when you load both of them up with work. In my tests though they still run at or slightly above the base clock, so still fully within the spec. Large gaming laptops can do better of course, but every laptop in the sub 2.2kg category has the same limitation (the praised Razer Blade included).

And I just actually checked this myself now, MBP is thermally limited, not power. I've run Heaven and Primes at the same time, system was pulling 100W total, for a long time, like almost a full minute (I was surprised), until CPU temps hit 100C, and then it throttled to about 85W. This was with 555x and 2.2 with 100W PSU.

That is an impressive torture test but there are very few real-world workflows were both CPU and GPU are occupied like this. In GPU assisted workflows its usually the GPU that takes over the heavy parallel computation stuff while CPU coordinates the logic, or they ping-pong.

Vega Pro 20 will be beneficial to those who for some reason run heavy fp16 based compute tasks on slim laptop and not on server farm (and I bet this is the type of benchmark Apple is using to justify 60%)

Apple themselves say that the 60% is a result from a Cinema 4D rendering workflow. If you did a fp16 workflow, the performance boost would probably be more than double (doubled throughput of fp16 ops + almost double RAM bandwidth + more ALUs + higher clocks).
[doublepost=1541673467][/doublepost]P.S. 60% performance advantage in a fp16 workload would mean that the Vega is actually around 20% slower that Polaris...

 

[maflynn]

Don't buy this T2 scrap even with Vega, it's not worth the hassle, few grams of cooper heatsink, total joke

The issue as I see it, is that apple did very little (nothing?) to accommodate the increased heat for the 2018 MBPs. They're not the only ones, but given the high price tag, it does leave a bad taste in one's mouth. Add in the fact that apple's proprietary technology (T2), is causing kernel panics for many of the owners, is unbelievable. Looks like someone who bought the Mac Mini is having this issue as well. So to confirm Apple's T2 chip is causing problems in the iMac Pro, the MacBook Pro and the Mac Mini. I'm sure we'll hear about it for the MBA as well.

Hopefully that apple has reworked the cooling to handle the vega more efficiently and only time will tell.

 

[doitdada]

Or just buy a Windows 10 desktop and no longer drink the Kool-aid.

 

[marc_b]

Or just buy a Windows 10 desktop and no longer drink the Kool-aid.

Windows laptops can't even get "standby when closing the lid" right reliably...

 

[_Kiki_]

Windows laptops can't even get "standby when closing the lid" right reliably...

looks like you never had good PC laptop

 

[marc_b]

looks like you never had good PC laptop

Right, just a "cheap" Surface Book for €2k+...

 

[_Kiki_]

Right, just a "cheap" Surface Book for €2k+...

Surface it's a piece of garbage, everything is soldered, even there is no access to the motherboard, you need use the chisel & hammer to open this thing

 

[Thysanoptera]

That is an impressive torture test but there are very few real-world workflows were both CPU and GPU are occupied like this. In GPU assisted workflows its usually the GPU that takes over the heavy parallel computation stuff while CPU coordinates the logic, or they ping-pong.

Apple prioritizes GPU, minimal throttling on GPU, huge throttling on CPU. GPU seems to start throttling when CPU goes below 1.6GHz. And funny thing - it stays there when you remove CPU load, forever - or until you unload the GPU also.

Apple themselves say that the 60% is a result from a Cinema 4D rendering workflow. If you did a fp16 workflow, the performance boost would probably be more than double (doubled throughput of fp16 ops + almost double RAM bandwidth + more ALUs + higher clocks).

Ahhh - the most reliable GPU benchmark in the world. Here are my own scores in Cinebench OpenGL. Notice anything, ehm, suspicious?

No, I'm not using floppy disks to exchange data between eGPU and PCIe bus

P.S. 60% performance advantage in a fp16 workload would mean that the Vega is actually around 20% slower that Polaris..

koyoot is going to eat me alive but I wouldn't be actually surprised if that was the case. They're planning to clock it 30% higher and the last thing you can say about Vega is that is power efficient at high clock rates, so the thermals will be interesting. My understanding is that it doesn't automatically result in double performance and 50% performance gain is what to be expected by going from promoted fp32 to 2xfp16 CUs. To show double or more you would pretty much need to write own low-level code that pairs fp16 data types and packs them into 32 bit registers.

 

[koyoot]

It should be OR

The GPU and CPU are connected by heatpipe, they heat each other up. And I just actually checked this myself now, MBP is thermally limited, not power. I've run Heaven and Primes at the same time, system was pulling 100W total, for a long time, like almost a full minute (I was surprised), until CPU temps hit 100C, and then it throttled to about 85W. This was with 555x and 2.2 with 100W PSU.

To stay on topic and avoid mod cleansing V2: Vega mobile will pull more power if Apple wants to show 60%. Big Vega is maybe 10% more power efficient than Polaris performance wise, you can squeeze 42W out of GPU, but at this stage the idle CPU temp would be over 80C, probably close to 90C. (idle CPU temp is at 60C with 555x@34W, 75C with 560x@38W - and that's because of mere 4W difference of GPU power draw - at the same fan rpms), effectively making it impossible to do anything other than pure GPU task.

Thus I wouldn't cut your Apple club membership card just yet. Vega Pro 20 will be beneficial to those who for some reason run heavy fp16 based compute tasks on slim laptop and not on server farm (and I bet this is the type of benchmark Apple is using to justify 60%), but for the rest of us it shouldn't make that much of a difference, probably like going from 555 to 560, but a lot closer to thermal limit. I'm really, really not buying that it will be over 60% more power efficient in general. I'm a pessimist (or rather - realist) until proven otherwise.

85W of heat can be easily dissipated by one heatsink, and two fans. 65W chips are cooled passively WITHOUT any fan: GTX 1050 Ti KalmX. Why would 85W of heat be a problem to be dissipated using two fans?

Why 6 core CPU gets so hot, and throttle? Because it clocks very high. Very high clocks require power, which increases heat output. Its all about power throttling in Apple computers, not heat throttling.

 

[Thysanoptera]

85W of heat can be easily dissipated by one heatsink, and two fans. 65W chips are cooled passively WITHOUT any fan: GTX 1050 Ti KalmX. Why would 85W of heat be a problem to be dissipated using two fans?

I work in power industry, and you can passively dissipate hundreds of megawatts of waste heat. The problem is the height of the heatsink is over 500 feet. It's all about the size.

 

[koyoot]

I work in power industry, and you can passively dissipate hundreds of megawatts of waste heat. The problem is the height of the heatsink is over 500 feet. It's all about the size.

Of course. But you have active cooling, here. Two high speed fans.

 

[Thysanoptera]

Of course. But you have active cooling, here. Two high speed fans.

Yes, but have a look at the size of it, number and surface area of fins. To be honest it is surprisingly efficient and quiet, but there is a limit of what it can do.

 

[nerowolfe19]

Yes, but have a look at the size of it, number and surface area of fins. To be honest it is surprisingly efficient and quiet, but there is a limit of what it can do.

I haven't personally tested the 2018 MBP lineup, but on my machine (2012 rMBP) it's been my experience that while it's a little bit of both in terms of what causes throttling, I can affirm your view that it's much more of a thermal issue than a power issue.

I can expound on the topic but find little incentive to. Test it for yourself, I'd be pleasantly surprised if it's the other way around.

 

[Thysanoptera]

I can expound on the topic but find little incentive to. Test it for yourself, I'd be pleasantly surprised if it's the other way around.

Already did, couple of posts above.

 

[nerowolfe19]

Already did, couple of posts above.

Good going. You could now repeat the test with the lid removed (and if you throw caution to the wind like I did, apply metal-based TIM to the heatsink). If you don't see noticeable improvement in your GPU scores across the board I'll swallow a cutlass.

 

[Thysanoptera]

Good going. You could now repeat the test with the lid removed (and if you throw caution to the wind like I did, apply metal-based TIM to the heatsink). If you don't see noticeable improvement in your GPU scores across the board I'll swallow a cutlass.

Tempting price but eventually not worth it There is a large disparity between individual machines, I'm not going to look for this, I think it was on this forum, one fellow had really poor scores, did just that and saw substantial improvements. But my scores were not that far off of his after repaste, so the potential of destroying 4.9k (with Apple care and tax) worth of equipment does not justify the expected performance gains. In my case at least, apparently I have a good copy.

EDIT - I forgot, the GPU scores would not improve at all, it can maintain max clock without problem. CPU would improve.