Tests Confirm Apple's Throttling Fix Improves Performance for 2018 MacBook Pro Models [Updated]

[bb9]

Apple dug themselves into a big hole on their own, there's still PLENTY of reasons to hate the company. I don't see the need for your comment.

Your sentiment applies squarely to your own message. “I don't see the need for your comment.”

 

[OC40]

I am on the device customization page ready to check out, but am struggling with which processor to go with at this point.

Only you can make that decision

- unknown

 

[KGB7]

Considering the differences in speed between smaller and larger laptops. Maybe there is a market for someone to develop a 'Turbo Dock'. A dock that attaches to the bottom of the laptop which contains a battery and a liquid cooling solution so power users can get better battery while travelling and faster performance when plugged in.

There was one few years back for Windows based laptop.
Over all it would be pricey and heavy.

As a cheap solution, get your self a brick of dry ice at local grocery store and place laptop on top of it.

 

[DanBig]

Yes, but Apple isn't claiming that. Nor are they selling that. They are giving you high performance in a light and thin package that is very well made. You obviously could get a bigger laptop with better cooling that would perform better with the same chip. If that's what you prefer, you have options. Apple is selling their computer, not necessarily just the chip.

What Apple (and the other Thin box makers) are selling is a very constrained CPU. Would you buy a Maserati to be stuck on roads that don't lets you push it full out? Thats a waste! I don't need a system that can punch it as a stop light, I need a system that wins the race as well.

While I fully understand for many the limits this system has won't be an issue. The point is, this is a Pro box, with the expectation being for pro's that need a system that will give them the full ability of the processing power it has.

The correction is not as dire as needing a gamers laptop here, thats too far to the other side of extreme!

Apple needs to offer a Pro's box that is able to leverage this and future hot chips to their full potential! Adding a few millimeters of thickness won't kill them! And its even possible for Apple to offer the exact same hardware with just two case designs (thin & thicker). So this is not that big a stretch!

 

[Rocko99991]

Thank you end users for pointing this out, vocalizing it, testing before and after. If it wasn't for you, many people would still have the issue.

 

[DNichter]

What Apple (and the other Thin box makers) are selling is a very constrained CPU. Would you buy a Maserati to be stuck on roads that don't lets you push it full out? Thats a waste! I don't need a system that can punch it as a stop light, I need a system that wins the race as well.

While I fully understand for many the limits this system has won't be an issue. The point is, this is a Pro box, with the expectation being for pro's that need a system that will give them the full ability of the processing power it has.

The correction is not as dire as needing a gamers laptop here. thats too far to the other side of extreme!

Apple needs to offer a Pro's box that is able to leverage this and future hot chips to their full potential! Adding a few millimeters of thickness won't kill them! And its even possible for Apple to offer the exact same hardware with just two case designs (thin & thicker). So this is not that big a stretch!

There's a difference in your logic though. If Maserati said that their vehicle had 500 horsepower and was tested at only 400, yes I would be mad, but I can't get mad at Apple for selling a device with a certain level of performance and it meeting that performance. That's then on the consumer as there are other options for bigger laptops if needed. If you need more power, buy a machine with more power.

 

[YaBe]

I am on the device customization page ready to check out, but am struggling with which processor to go with at this point.

The answers are 2:
1) without knowing what you do it is hard to help
2) if you do not know what cpu you need, most likely you need the base model, otherwise you’d know.

 

[DanBig]

I find it absolutely hilarious that so many here think that most people would prefer a laptop 2-3x as thick, in order to possibly get 10% more performance in very specific tasks. No, that's not a tradeoff most people would make or want. One of the strengths of the MBP is its incredible design/thinness/weight, and that has a ton of advantages. For most people (including pros), that's NOT worth sacrificing for a bit more clockspeed. And those that NEED the absolute best performance would go with another machine, like the iMac Pro. Its as if people here pretend to forget that the entire point of a laptop is high portability.

You've over simplified things here!

We want the performance we are paying for in this laptop. And no one is suggesting the system needs to be 2 or even 3 times as thick! Maybe 5 millimeters thicker which is likely all thats needed! Still very portable! And still very thin!

And for a Mac laptop there is no other choice! Lugging a iMac Pro or even a MacPro is not an option!
[doublepost=1532533586][/doublepost]

There's a difference in your logic though. If Maserati said that their vehicle had 500 horsepower and was tested at only 400, yes I would be mad, but I can't get mad at Apple for selling a device with a certain level of performance and it meeting that performance. That's then on the consumer as there are other options for bigger laptops if needed. If you need more power, buy a machine with more power.

You missed the point the specs of the CPU is what you need to review. Look at the new i7 its not being pushed to the level this chip is and while if you push it to the limit it will also throttle it won't be at the same breakpoint the i9 does which is sooner. Then the i9 is not a good investment in this form factor at this time. If Intel is able to get the next node point on line this fall then maybe next years i9 chip won't face the same issues as it will run cooler. But then again whats after the i9? Look at Intels roadmap. This is why a slightly thicker frame makes sense this is not a complete re-engineering project! This is taking whats built today and adding a better cooling system and then extending the case to cover it. I'm guessing 5 millimeters or so its that such a hardship? Getting the full performance of the i9?

 

[maflynn]

I am on the device customization page ready to check out, but am struggling with which processor to go with at this point.

My suggestion is not to derail this thread and instead post in the buying tips forum, detailing how you'll be using it, your budget and wants and needs. This news thread is not the place for such discussions

 

[buststyles]

To be fair, the original findings showed that the i9 MBP was not able to sustain base clock on full CPU load before the patch. I agree that one should not expect a laptop to sustain peak performance for a long time but it should be able to sustain base clock for a reasonable amount of time. It can get hot and very loud while doing it but it should not throttle within minutes unless the airflow is blocked by something.

I agree that base clock speed should be maintained for some time. But once the issue was found and corrected the goal post was moved to having that base clock speed or even turbo boost speeds maintained under all operating conditions. I guess definition of reasonable is subjective to all. I don't see why the cpu should never throttle in minutes to save itself or the system. The cpu is not the only thing that is generating heat when the computer is running task.

 

[pl1984]

Now that’s a more interesting question. I’d love to know how these hit the streets in the state they were in too. It’s a pretty horrible mistake imo. The only semi-convincing theory I’ve seen to date is that the pre-production units were tested by engineers and worked as expected* but sometime between pre-production and production the firmware was changed/broken. Actual post-production QA would have had to been little more than, “does it switch on, run and not crash in x number of hours”.

Perhaps (IMO more likely than not) they were load tested. I can see a missing signing key being something that occurred post testing as they moved into production.
[doublepost=1532534123][/doublepost]

I agree that base clock speed should be maintained for some time. But once the issue was found and corrected the goal post was moved to having that base clock speed or even turbo boost speeds maintained under all operating conditions. I guess definition of reasonable is subjective to all. I don't see why the cpu should never throttle in minutes to save itself or the system. The cpu is not the only thing that is generating heat when the computer is running task.

I consider the base clock speed to be maintained under all but exceptional circumstances. If base speed cannot be maintained in such a manner then the design is flawed.

 

[fatalogic]

They’re probably thinking that they made a good decision based on the information at the time. They can now re-purchase if they desire. I certainly wouldn’t want purchase a device, discover its hobbled in some way causing doubt and then let that 14 day return window lapse.

Oh you don’t know? Apple bans you from repurchasing products you have returned after the 14 day return policy. I even heard they blacklist your credit cards so you can’t repurchase from third parties.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

I have to laugh so much - from all haters, from all know-it-alls, from all people who canceled their pre-orders from i9 version and bought i7

Show me another tech company that is able to come up with such fixes in such short time and acknowledge them

Until we know what the fix I would not praise Apple too much. A quick thought is that they put a limit on the CPU via a software patch so it wont throttle so much and be more consistent. As the video noted once the CPU got hot it never went above the base minimum speed. So it is now gimped. The result is better for it but less than other i9 Laptops.
[doublepost=1532534432][/doublepost]

Would be nice to mention as well that Dell XPS 15" is almost 50% cheaper. There is no place for similar issues for bloody expensive MBP.

Cheaper and according to the video has less of a problem and even with out a fix is still faster than the fixed Macbook.

 

[sirexilor]

Apple dug themselves into a big hole on their own, there's still PLENTY of reasons to hate the company. I don't see the need for your comment.

Hate is a strong word. I would say that I still wouldn't recommend to buy 2016 or 2017 model due to keyboard issues and wait couple of months with these 2018 models. And yes, i9 is still total no-go.

 

[buststyles]

Expectations changed when companies continue to focus less on desktop/workstations and more towards making laptops/smartphones smaller and less IO.

I don't think companies changed focus they have only reacted to the purchasing trends of companies and individuals as a whole. Staying in a company/corporate mindset. In the past when laptops/desktops were much bigger dedicated, heavy duty server hardware was always used to perform heavy tasks. Now with amazon and other cloud computing platforms server farm capacity can be scaled up rapidly to provide computing resources as needed. Companies will continue to focus less on desktops/workstations as more and more applications and computing resources can be served by on demand cloud solutions.

 

[cmwade77]

And in related news, cooling pads will make a major comeback......if you use one, do yourself a favor and get a USB-C cable for it to avoid needing a dongle.

 

[IG88]

It's sad that I'm this cynical about Apple now, but 'missing key in the firmware' as the excuse, which no one else has the cryptographic ability to verify themselves, sounds like covering up a blatant hardware blunder here.

But my comment may be premature and not well informed, does anyone have a comment?

Is there a way to inspect Apple's fix to see if it did hardware instruction kernel changes like the one posted on Reddit, or will we never know as it's all closed source?

Missing key in the firmware my ass...

This is my take.....

I believe that Apple historically has put in crazy high power limits for the CPUs, to move that limit up out of the way, so that the CPU will only thermally throttle when it needs to.

This works fine as long as your power delivery circuitry is sized to deliver the highest load the CPU could ever draw.

In this case however, an i9 with 6 cores @ full boost can overpower the VRM chip which leads to some nasty throttle behavior instead of the relatively smooth and stable behavior that you typically see with thermal throttling.

So Apple's fix was to put in a power limit for the CPU that keeps its peak draw within the limits of the VRM.

Yeah Apple's explanation is kinda bs but it's not exactly lying either. It's one of those explanations that's technically correct yet not really the full story.

 

[buststyles]

There's a difference in your logic though. If Maserati said that their vehicle had 500 horsepower and was tested at only 400, yes I would be mad, but I can't get mad at Apple for selling a device with a certain level of performance and it meeting that performance. That's then on the consumer as there are other options for bigger laptops if needed. If you need more power, buy a machine with more power.

True and that hp rating is only for normal conditions and maybe for 2 dyno runs. On a hot summer's day that figure can drop and a nice cool morning you can get more.

 

[cmwade77]

Oh you don’t know? Apple bans you from repurchasing products you have returned after the 14 day return policy. I even heard they blacklist your credit cards so you can’t repurchase from third parties.

LOL, Thanks for the laugh, I needed that this morning.

 

[DNichter]

True and that hp rating is only for normal conditions and maybe for 2 dyno runs. On a hot summer's day that figure can drop and a nice cool morning you can get more.

Yup, absolutely. Kind of why this whole thing has been a bit overblown in my eyes, but I can understand not getting advertised performance. Good on Apple for fixing the issue within a week of release.

 

[Hitrate]

So Apple's fix was to put in a power limit for the CPU that keeps its peak draw within the limits of the VRM.

Yeah Apple's explanation is kinda bs but it's not exactly lying either. It's one of those explanations that's technically correct yet not really the full story.

Then why do all these macrumor ppl and you tubers claim it was a technical glitch ? Not that I don’t believe you but that would make all these folks go on my blacklist. Like the guy above you says the issues is fixed - no it’s not fixed it’s patched with a bandaid.

 

[Ethosik]

If you want to plug in a USB-A keyboard and mouse it will only cost you $100 is dongles? Seriously your AppleFanWorship is a little blatant.

The FACT is they could have easily had two USB-C on one side and two USB-A on the other side. However it would have to be a tad thicker!!!!! That thickness would have done a few things. More diverse port options and less dongles. More room for cooling hot CPU's. More Key travel, up and down.

I have yet to see or use a USB-C flash drive. I am sure they exist. I do use USB-A flash drives all the time with a dongle on my 2017 Macbook. I use Ethernet as well with a dongle. On my ThinkPad I can do both without a dongle. It does not have a Apple logo on it but the Keyboard is 1000x better, 8 days a week.

My 4-port USB-A adapter was only $15

 

[cmwade77]

This is my take.....

I believe that Apple historically has put in crazy high power limits for the CPUs, to move that limit up out of the way, so that the CPU will only thermally throttle when it needs to.

This works fine as long as your power delivery circuitry is sized to deliver the highest load the CPU could ever draw.

In this case however, an i9 with 6 cores @ full boost can overpower the VRM chip which leads to some nasty throttle behavior instead of the relatively smooth and stable behavior that you typically see with thermal throttling.

So Apple's fix was to put in a power limit for the CPU that keeps its peak draw within the limits of the VRM.

Yeah Apple's explanation is kinda bs but it's not exactly lying either. It's one of those explanations that's technically correct yet not really the full story.

Here is my problem with this: There is a lack of QA/QC that used to be present for all Apple products before they were ever sent out. Something this simple should have been caught before the first unit was shipped.

 

[buststyles]

Perhaps (IMO more likely than not) they were load tested. I can see a missing signing key being something that occurred post testing as they moved into production.
[doublepost=1532534123][/doublepost]
I consider the base clock speed to be maintained under all but exceptional circumstances. If base speed cannot be maintained in such a manner then the design is flawed.

Exceptional is also subjective. Your exceptional might be 3 times worse that Intel's exceptional. I don't know..but if Intel makes these claims or not on the chips but legally I find it hard that they would.

 

[cmwade77]

My 4-port USB-A adapter was only $15

People think they have to overspend on these things, but the reality is they don't. Now my USB-C hub was admittedly slightly more than your (around $30) because I also wanted: Ethernet, HDMI, USB-C pass through for charging, an SD card reader and a VGA/DVI port so that I can run two monitors off of one port. Really, all of that with using a single USB-C port and no additional drivers are required.

Since my phone uses the same USB-C port, I can plug the exact same adapter into my phone and have all of this available there as well.

Oh and did I mention that I can use my USB-C power bank from Anker to power/charge my computer? I don't need to do it often, but it is nice to have when there is an issue.

What if I forgot the charger for my computer? Use any USB-C cord and charger that can provide enough electricity, which is a good majority of them now.

USB 3.0 can't compete, this is why USB-C is by far the superior connection and why Apple really needs to abandon the proprietary Lightning port on their phones (and Microsoft needs to the same on the Surface devices).

I have a USB-C flash drive that also has USB-A on it that was about the same price as any other flash drive of the same 128GB capacity.