Some new findings (promising) on the throttling issues 2018 MBP

rainking

rainking

macrumors 6502
So I installed Macs Fan Control and maxed both fans and ran torture test for at least 5 minutes on Prime95 and held a constant 3.0GHz on a i7 2.6. As soon as I turned the fans to auto, that's when it started to dip below base frequency. So in theory, Apple could fix this with a much more aggressive fan speed profile. See screenshots.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2018-07-18 23.00.09.png
    Screenshot 2018-07-18 23.00.09.png
    3.4 MB · Views: 846
  • Screenshot 2018-07-18 23.00.43.png
    Screenshot 2018-07-18 23.00.43.png
    3.3 MB · Views: 637
rainking said:
So I installed Macs Fan Control and maxed both fans and ran torture test for at least 5 minutes on Prime95 and held a constant 3.0GHz on a i7 2.6. As soon as I turned the fans to auto, that's when it started to dip below base frequency. So in theory, Apple could fix this with a much more aggressive fan speed profile. See screenshots.
Click to expand...

When Lisa (MobileTechReview) used this utility, she called out that the fans were louder. However, it did not seem like she thought they were unacceptably louder. Assuming you do not have a sound level meter handy . . . in your opinion, how much louder were the fans at consistent "max"? Would you be fine with running them permanently that way?
 
Elwe said:
When Lisa (MobileTechReview) used this utility, she called out that the fans were louder. However, it did not seem like she thought they were unacceptably louder. Assuming you do not have a sound level meter handy . . . in your opinion, how much louder were the fans at consistent "max"? Would you be fine with running them permanently that way?
Click to expand...
I didn't think they were unacceptably too loud. It may not even require 100% max sped on both fans to maintain frequency above base. I guess I could keep lowering it by 1% to see where it finally drops but the point is that best case scenario, it can be fixed with a more aggressive fan speed profile. Which means it could be fix on the software side.
 
I thought as much. My i7 (2.2Ghz) got unacceptably warm (on my lap, and on the keyboard) when installing Parallels/Win10. But the fans were still not kicking in. A few minutes later they came on and suddenly I felt comfortable again. I suspect that it would be much better if the fans came on sooner. But they are pretty loud.
 
kodos said:
I thought as much. My i7 (2.2Ghz) got unacceptably warm (on my lap, and on the keyboard) when installing Parallels/Win10. But the fans were still not kicking in. A few minutes later they came on and suddenly I felt comfortable again. I suspect that it would be much better if the fans came on sooner. But they are pretty loud.
Click to expand...

How is your Win10 experience on Parallels on your new i7 15"? Would it be possible to run a GeekBench 4 inside it? Want to know how slow/fast it would be.

Many thanks
 
rainking said:
So I installed Macs Fan Control and maxed both fans and ran torture test for at least 5 minutes on Prime95 and held a constant 3.0GHz on a i7 2.6. As soon as I turned the fans to auto, that's when it started to dip below base frequency. So in theory, Apple could fix this with a much more aggressive fan speed profile. See screenshots.
Click to expand...


With the I7 but with the i9? I wouldn't want it to get that hot and who knows if the fans would be good enough for it.
 
The fans are not loud at all. And the frequency is quite low overall. (Low pitch) very much improved over older macs. Even when running at near full speed, unless you're in a library, my opinion is they are far from offensive or annoying.
 
just to share my post from the other thread (sorry for multiple posts. i too have been testing and here are my findings

I personally set the fans to the read the sensor off the "CPU PECI" sensor and the fans to kick in @ 50 deg C.

Cinebench( fans @ auto) Peak temp @ 95 Deg C
Test 1 : 859
Test 2 : 808 (Fans Kick in)
Test 3 : 824
Test 4 : 767
Test 5 : 758
Test 6 : 839
Test 7 : 744
Test 8 : 683(starts to spike all over the place)
Test 9 : 681
Test 10 :745


Cinebench (with mac fan control) Peak Temp @ 85 Deg C
Test 1 : 892
Test 2 : 888
Test 3 : 898
Test 4 : 875
Test 5 : 826
Test 6 : 823
Test 7 : 873
Test 8 : 830
Test 9 : 793
Test 10 :864

then I jump over to prime 95 and i see a mark improvement.
in test 1 & 3, no change, rock solid 2.9ghz across all cores.

when we hit test 2 & 4, thats where it gets interesting. With the fans on auto, the throttle starts immediately, however using FAN SMC Controller, it hits much later, almost at the end of the test. I also noticed that it goes crazy as the thermal draw exceeds 45w and goes up, then it agressively throttles.

i'm quite happy to see that this is throttling can be mitigated to a certain degree. we will have to test more and perhaps see what happens over the course of the next few days/weeks.

will wait for more people to chime in with their observations.

update: included my prime95 screenshots

a8OO8nL.jpg

wA41Buy.jpg

fsthX18.jpg
 
Last edited:
The frquency is still very low even the fans are changed to max. I do not think that fans can solve this problem, since it must be the problem of inner structure or some hardware placement issues. Besides, MacBook Pro 2018 is very thin. Even a lot of gaming PC cannot handle so much heat, with their thick body, let alone the MacBook.
 
These are bandaid solutions.

If you crank up fan on battery, you will use up your battery faster. Apple should have stuck to 99 Whr battery which would compensate to some extent, but they think thinner is better even on the highest pro laptops :-(
 
rainking said:
So I installed Macs Fan Control and maxed both fans and ran torture test for at least 5 minutes on Prime95 and held a constant 3.0GHz on a i7 2.6. As soon as I turned the fans to auto, that's when it started to dip below base frequency. So in theory, Apple could fix this with a much more aggressive fan speed profile. See screenshots.
Click to expand...

Even when set at auto. It seems like throttling isn’t so bad on the 2.6 GHz and it can almost maintain the base clock according to your screenshots. If Apple ever increases the fan curve they won’t need to max it.

Seems like I am going for this model then. Thanks for the data :)
 
M.Rizk said:
Even when set at auto. It seems like throttling isn’t so bad on the 2.6 GHz and it can almost maintain the base clock according to your screenshots. If Apple ever increases the fan curve they won’t need to max it.

Seems like I am going for this model then. Thanks for the data :)
Click to expand...
i'd get him to rune Test 2 of prime 95 to see the result before ytou conclude
 
M.Rizk said:
Even when set at auto. It seems like throttling isn’t so bad on the 2.6 GHz and it can almost maintain the base clock according to your screenshots. If Apple ever increases the fan curve they won’t need to max it.

Seems like I am going for this model then. Thanks for the data :)
Click to expand...
Five minutes is not enough...
 
rainking said:
So I installed Macs Fan Control and maxed both fans and ran torture test for at least 5 minutes on Prime95 and held a constant 3.0GHz on a i7 2.6. As soon as I turned the fans to auto, that's when it started to dip below base frequency. So in theory, Apple could fix this with a much more aggressive fan speed profile. See screenshots.
Click to expand...

These are actually pretty good results. When all Cores are used you will rarely see the frequency going higher on any comparable machine.
 
Robot10110 said:
It is suggested that the CPU wouldn't be throttling without the use of the GPU.
New hypothesis to test !
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am going to test when my i9 unit arrives next week. My suspicion is that its either power-based throttling (not enough power for the CPU when the GPU is doing work) or a bug in the power management system that cuts of the power to the CPU too aggressively.
 
Some very confusing figures coming through but the vast majority of tasks the i9 looks to be of little to no benefit to anyone unless you run it in a fridge or you are on an artic expedition.

I think from all the tests I've see and read so far the 2.2 seems to have very similar scores to the 2.6 i7 and its a slightly lower costs. But if it can do that more often and doesn't need to have any thermal throttling why go for the higher model.

Apple don't always allow all options to be configurable on the base model each year so maybe they know this by allowing it still.

So 15" 2.2 i7 Proc, probably 560X graphics and then its do you really need 32Gb of memory or is 16Gb enough and then the storage decision.
 
enri1357 said:
How is your Win10 experience on Parallels on your new i7 15"? Would it be possible to run a GeekBench 4 inside it? Want to know how slow/fast it would be.

Many thanks
Click to expand...
I have it on my 2.6 ghz model and runs very very smooth. I have 16 gb ram, but I am considering upgrading to 32 gigs as next year I will need to run VM on multiple cores for my accounting software (windows only supports it) but it runs smooth. I also enjoy the Audible app on the Microsoft store.. Why apple doesn't have a audible app baffles me, but that is probably audibles fault.
 
mvp2885 said:
I have it on my 2.6 ghz model and runs very very smooth. I have 16 gb ram, but I am considering upgrading to 32 gigs as next year I will need to run VM on multiple cores for my accounting software (windows only supports it) but it runs smooth. I also enjoy the Audible app on the Microsoft store.. Why apple doesn't have a audible app baffles me, but that is probably audibles fault.
Click to expand...

That is great. Thanks for letting me know :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top