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

rainking

macrumors 6502
Aug 12, 2011
287
33
0
Johnson City, NY
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


Elwe

macrumors regular
Dec 30, 2006
135
55
0
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.
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet

rainking

macrumors 6502
Aug 12, 2011
287
33
0
Johnson City, NY
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?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M.Rizk

kodos

macrumors 6502
May 1, 2010
413
960
0
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.
 

enri1357

macrumors member
Jul 31, 2016
65
30
0
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.
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
 

Closingracer

macrumors 68040
Jul 13, 2010
3,465
1,369
0
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.

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.
 

upandown

macrumors 6502a
Apr 10, 2017
605
432
0
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet

semajm85

macrumors member
Nov 30, 2012
43
15
0
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



 
Last edited:

Mathematig

macrumors newbie
Jul 15, 2018
23
29
0
Chicago
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hitrate

cfdlab

macrumors regular
Feb 26, 2008
117
151
0
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 :-(
 

M.Rizk

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2015
535
235
0
25
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.
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 :)
 

semajm85

macrumors member
Nov 30, 2012
43
15
0
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 :)
i'd get him to rune Test 2 of prime 95 to see the result before ytou conclude
 

content

macrumors member
Dec 22, 2015
77
45
0
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 :)
Five minutes is not enough...
 

Nozuka

macrumors 68020
Jul 3, 2012
2,224
2,713
0
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.
These are actually pretty good results. When all Cores are used you will rarely see the frequency going higher on any comparable machine.
 

leman

macrumors G3
Oct 14, 2008
9,918
4,516
0
It is suggested that the CPU wouldn't be throttling without the use of the GPU.
New hypothesis to test !
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.
 

doitdada

Suspended
Oct 14, 2013
946
546
0
I guess the i9 and a BlackMagic eGPU is a must if you are looking for the best performance.
 

MadCar

macrumors regular
Oct 21, 2014
116
74
0
The internet
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.
 

mvp2885

macrumors member
Jul 19, 2018
38
192
0
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
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.
 

enri1357

macrumors member
Jul 31, 2016
65
30
0
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.
That is great. Thanks for letting me know :)