Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The wings were deceptive. You think you're supposed to wrap it neatly around them, then your cable breaks after a year.
Well I think you *are* supposed to, but they decided maybe their failure rate would decline if they didn’t. They may be back!
 
I don't think the MacBook Pros are in the mobile workstation class or ever marketed that way. I remember the Dell ones that out the around the came with a super large duty power supply and was about twice as thick as a regular Dell. Those were right on the edge of what I would call mobile. Pro is Apple's definition of pro being can this machine perform tasks after and better than what ever tier is below in the hardware portfolio.

Agree to disagree then :)

So "Pro" in the MacBook line has a different meaning than in the iMac or Mac-Line?
 
  • Like
Reactions: buststyles
Agree to disagree then :)

So "Pro" in the MacBook line has a different meaning than in the iMac or Mac-Line?
No, same meaning. MBP, iMac Pro and Mac Pro are the top performers available in Apple’s laptop, all-in-one and headless form factors.

The MBP is designed with a certain set of tradeoffs that give Apple’s laptop customers the features they valuable most: small, thin, light, reliable, nicely designed, relatively powerful yet quiet, great build quality and battery life with an excellent display. Most run MacOS on them but some also use Windows or Linux, from boot or in a VM.

There are laptops with bigger batteries, that have better performing CPUs or GPUs, higher resolution displays, 64GB of RAM, a selection of different ports, are cheaper or whatever else you may want that the MBP doesn’t offer. They don’t run MacOS, but if other features are more important to you than what’s available on the MBP, by all means, buy one of those machines that will better suit your requirements. MBP is not the best laptop for everyone, by any means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heineken
I'm not a pro but I can imagine that if you're a pro and Apple advertises its 4,8 GHz boost speed for when they need it, especially when they mention 3D rendering, it should be usable and stable for a bit more than just two minutes. Yes, they fixed the fluctuations of temperature and clock speed but, since the limiting factor is cooling and the cooling system cannot sustain the i9 peak performance, it is now hitting a stable max of 3,96 GHz instead. Not acceptable if you pride yourself with delivering customer needs and great design. Good design is when form follows function, which it doesn't do here and hasn't been with most recent Apple products of the last few years which is why people complain. Thus, it's not even good design anymore, even though the visuals themselves are mostly top-notch (except for the notch, obviously).
 
First your DC-In board needs to be replaced ASAP! You also have metal shavings in the socket. Bring your system into someone who fixes Mac's or checkout IFIXIT.com to find your system to do it your self! It's not that hard.

Lack of care is what I see here! Take a read of this Apple TN https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203207

Not to mention that user is clearly at fault for eating a crumbly sandwich over the magsafe port.
/s
 
  • Like
Reactions: flat five
No, same meaning. MBP, iMac Pro and Mac Pro are the top performers available in Apple’s laptop, all-in-one and headless form factors.

Thats not what I meant, the iMac Pro and Mac Pro are marketed as workstation class machines that are supposed to be able to handle a sustained workload so in my opinion it is reasonable to expect the MacBook Pro (at least to 15" one) to also be able to deliver its base performance over a longer period of time.

It seems the MBP can do that after the patch so its fine in my book.
 
I'm not a pro but I can imagine that if you're a pro and Apple advertises its 4,8 GHz boost speed for when they need it, especially when they mention 3D rendering, it should be usable and stable for a bit more than just two minutes.
That's exactly what boost speed does _not_ mean. Remember Formula 1 cars with a "turbo boost" that gave them 250 extra horsepowers for about 3 seconds? Just enough to overtake another car.
[doublepost=1532606856][/doublepost]
Do I understand it correctly that if you don't just need a few peak boosts but rather constant raw cpu power, the i7 still outperforms the i9? I don't understand how Apple can call this a fix if they merely just fixed the fluctuation in cpu temp and clock speed and thus their "pro" processor is handling the pro use case worse.
One is a quad core processor, and one is a six core processor. Six cores produce 50% more heat. Therefore they have to run a bit slower. If you use 4 vs 6 cores then each of the 4 cores runs a bit faster than one of the 6 cores, but 6 cores still beat the 4 cores easily. If you had a task that uses exactly 4 cores, they would both run at the same speed.That's just physics. Single core runs faster than dual core runs faster than quad core runs faster than six cores - but more cores still beat fewer cores.
 
Last edited:
I installed FreeBSD on my 2012 retina MBP once. It worked, but it had weird installation issues, and I was afraid to keep it running that.
[doublepost=1532550387][/doublepost]


Nothing was wrong with the MagSafe connection, just the stupid cables. Same with Lightning. I don't get why Apple's cable design is so shoddy.

I like that you can charge Macs from USB-C, but I wish USB-C had a MagSafe-like connection for safety.
Never tried to install Unix on bare metal (PC or Mac), the reasons being that its installation is weird even on a vbox, and it's more of a server-oriented system. It's stable in that role, but has a relatively primitive GUI desktop, and applications are relatively scant (compared with Linux). I've had few problems installing Linux on Macs after installing rEFInd as a boot loader.

Yes, the MagSafe connector was just fine, but the flimsy white cables Apple uses have always had a tendency to fray with any connector.
 
Because showing an actual problem with a new product is 'hating' now.
Geez, I thought the Tesla fanboys are the worst.
The PC master race / Android police are just as bad - On the premises that the i9 egregiously outstrips the MacBook Pro's capability to cool it Linus Tech Tips spent $3-4,000 on a i9 MacBook just so they could "entertain" us with a "How fast can we throttle the new i9" unboxing video. The whole reason for the live stream video was to mock what was supposed to be an unfixable problem because Apple "so dumb".

But, oops - it was a software / firmware problem after all. So no clearly no "hating" going on - This was just a live stream video to demonstrate an actual problem.

And now from Dan Lee's video we see that Apples cooling solution is actually better then the Zenbook and XPS 15". All three achieve 3.0GHz average clock speed, but the i9 MacBook Pro is significantly quieter - in a thinner, lighter package. Which no one wants to admit is desirable. Nevermind, that you're desired products benefit from this - lets all just laugh at Apple for continuing to make thinner, lighter, quieter products. It's not hate by the way - like you said you're just pointing out actual problems. Totally not hate.
 
The PC master race / Android police are just as bad - On the premises that the i9 egregiously outstrips the MacBook Pro's capability to cool it Linus Tech Tips spent $3-4,000 on a i9 MacBook just so they could "entertain" us with a "How fast can we throttle the new i9" unboxing video. The whole reason for the live stream video was to mock what was supposed to be an unfixable problem because Apple "so dumb".

But, oops - it was a software / firmware problem after all. So no clearly no "hating" going on - This was just a live stream video to demonstrate an actual problem.

And now from Dan Lee's video we see that Apples cooling solution is actually better then the Zenbook and XPS 15". All three achieve 3.0GHz average clock speed, but the i9 MacBook Pro is significantly quieter - in a thinner, lighter package. Which no one wants to admit is desirable. Nevermind, that you're desired products benefit from this - lets all just laugh at Apple for continuing to make thinner, lighter, quieter products. It's not hate by the way - like you said you're just pointing out actual problems. Totally not hate.

Did you read the article and watch the video?

1) His name is Dave Lee

2) At 2:55 he says that MBP is not as performant as the Zenbook and Dell XPS.

Not sure how else to interpret what you saw
 
MacRumors reader Aea shared pre-patch and post-patch Cinebench benchmarks done with the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Core i9 chip showing the jump in score following the update.

corei9mrforums-800x550.jpg
Am I the only one wondering why Apple does not kick in with a 55W Power Limit from the start or at least after the load looks like a continuous one?

These options should become part of the energy panel, if they are this relevant…
 
Lying is one thing, but misleading is also equally bad, not only ethically but also in many cases, legally.

This is a case where I don't think Apple has done anything sinister. They probably didn't want to get into talking about putting in a peak power limit because then you'll have all of the doomsayers freaking the **** out about it "OMGZ Apple put in a power cap, total rip-off, waaaaaaaaaa" so I can kinda see why they answered the way they did.

Now that membrane on the 3rd gen keyboard being only for noise? That's total bs. They're lying, they know they're lying, and they know that we know they're lying.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: markedlymac
Did you read the article and watch the video?
How about you? At 2:29-2-30 he mentions the performance advatage is slight. Then at 2:36 show a graphic with their aveage clock speeds under load. 2.9 vs 3.0. With XPS and Zenbook Pro's extra weight and extra few millimeters - you're telling that they can only do 100 MHz better while being significantly louder?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IG88
Believing is actually the opposite of what I'M trying to accomplish, I want answers, facts, real facts not just one part of the story. Actually that's what makes someone like me invaluable, I don't just take the first handfull of test videos and claimed fixed as fact. Sometimes you gotta get dirty and test things out yourself. I'll probably do a video about it real soon in a store somewhere and show you just how bad they perform at simple functions bringing it to it's knees as if it was from 2011. If I help other people along the way to not waste money before they have all the facts laid down and know this is what they need, and know it will perform to their expectations, that's just an added bonus. Arguing with people who cannot see the whole picture will just get me banned so good luck to you too my friend.

I can't see the whole picture? That's funny. All I've seen you do is whine.

If you want to say they shouldn't have put the i9 in this slim body laptop I'd agree with you.

Personally, I'd rather have 4 faster cores than 6 slower ones, but that's the direction Intel has gone, and I think it's sort of a knee jerk reaction to AMD Ryzen.
 
Last edited:
And now from Dan Lee's video we see that Apples cooling solution is actually better then the Zenbook and XPS 15". All three achieve 3.0GHz average clock speed, but the i9 MacBook Pro is significantly quieter - in a thinner, lighter package.

How about you? At 2:29-2-30 he mentions the performance advatage is slight. Then at 2:36 show a graphic with their aveage clock speeds under load. 2.9 vs 3.0. With XPS and Zenbook Pro's extra weight and extra few millimeters - you're telling that they can only do 100 MHz better while being significantly louder?

A better cooling solution and significantly quieter? The vid I watched had a table showing that Asus Zenbook Pro (which model?) run 3.0Ghz / 49dB, XPS 15" (again which model?) run 3.0GHz / 48dB and MacBook Pro run 2.9GHz / 43dB. The difference is whopping 5-6dB. Then Lee added that "..you're also not gonna get performance like XPS or Zenbook.."

Zenbook Pro (ux580) 18.9mm / 1.88kg is almost as thin as MacBook Pro 15,5mm / 1,83kg. So yes, Macbook is definitely thinner (3mm) and lighter (50 grams) but also slower. Good value for the money, get a millimetre thinner chassis but loose the performance. Sounds a great deal for sure.
 
Agree to disagree then :)

So "Pro" in the MacBook line has a different meaning than in the iMac or Mac-Line?

No, same meaning. The iMac Pro is marketed as the most powerful iMac of the iMac line that a "Pro" will see benefits from but not as a workstation. The current Mac Pro sits on top of the Mac Mini in the Mac line. It is marketed as being built around workstation graphics but not called a workstation directly.
 
The VRM is a red herring. You're all locked into it thinking that if they put a better VRM in there that magically the CPU cooler could dissipate more heat.

The limiting factor here has always been the CPU cooler. Apple initially had the peak power limit set to something crazy like 100W. They never should have done that. Had they set a proper peak power limit to begin with you would have never known about any of this.

I'm "belittling" you because I have a basic understanding of the situation and I'm trying to give you some insight, yet you choose to ignore it and attempt to twist my words and accuse me of being an apologist.

If the CPU in a steady state long term load is running at or above base clock and delivering rated TDP it is working as advertised. I believe that to be the case now, so I don't see what your problem is.

Again, I already gave you an example of another manufacturer (Dell) setting a peak power limit in a CPU that was lower than what Apple was using in a comparable CPU. I don't see you crying foul about Dell putting power caps in place. Why is that?

The chips spec sheet shows there's more gas in it! The VRMs are part of it but the root issue is the case limits the cooling. The rigidness of Apple not addressing the systems cooling is the issue here. No one is expecting a gamers box, just one a bit bigger to offer the needed cooling to get us further up into the turbo space of this chip. Throttling it to be mostly as the base frequency is what most video pro's are complaining about. Why should I spend that kind of cash for such little gain.
[doublepost=1532621155][/doublepost]
Well I think you *are* supposed to, but they decided maybe their failure rate would decline if they didn’t. They may be back!

That was a bad design by the Apple engineers! I too believed that made sense until my sailer friend explain why it was bad. Since then I loosely coil the cable and use a velcro cable strap leaving it in a uniform circle with all of my cables.
[doublepost=1532621842][/doublepost]
No, same meaning. The iMac Pro is marketed as the most powerful iMac of the iMac line that a "Pro" will see benefits from but not as a workstation. The current Mac Pro sits on top of the Mac Mini in the Mac line. It is marketed as being built around workstation graphics but not called a workstation directly.

Just like you can be a little pregnant ;-}

Apple blurred the line with the MacBooks! The new MacBook should have been an Air, the current MacBook Pro's the MacBook and the MIA is the missing real MacBook Pro. The iMac series is a bit different as the iMac Pro is more Pro'ish with its CPU's and still carries all of the ports forward. The Headless Mac's Mac Mini & Mac Pro follow with the newer Mac Pro having more ports, but lost the storage bays in favor of one SSD which also was a mistake besides the cooling issues it had.

I fully realize systems leapfrog until the things get worked out over time its just the MacBook Pro got lost here with the Thin is in effort. This is were Apple needs to get back to back filling the high end MacBook Pro without compromising performance the previous generations had in their time points.
 
Last edited:
The chips spec sheet shows there's more gas in it! The VRMs are part of it but the root issue is the case limits the cooling. The rigidness of Apple not addressing the systems cooling is the issue here. No one is expecting a gamers box, just one a bit bigger to offer the needed cooling to get us further up into the turbo space of this chip. Throttling it to be mostly as the base frequency is what most video pro's are complaining about. Why should I spend that kind of cash for such little gain.

The i9 shouldn't even be offered. The price increase vs performance isn't there.

Intel is what....2+ years late on the Cannon Lake die shrink? If that vaporware ever materializes, we may finally see that the current MacBook Pro's cooler was sized to anticipate those heat loads.
 
nothing?

not charging:

View attachment 772755


not charging:

View attachment 772756


sketchy AF looking:

View attachment 772757


-----
i promise you these aren't setup photos in attempt to make it look worse than it really is.. they're exactly real life conditions and i'm always having to make sure my laptop /cord is in a certain position to get a charge.. also, the magsafe connector is spring loaded and will jam up.. i have to buy a new one about once per year.. judging by my third picture, that time is coming up (although the laptop itself will be replaced soon instead of the power cord).. it will start smoking eventually due to the shorting/flakey connection..

i get it that if these things are always used in calm/clean/controlled environments then you may have better luck with them but bring them into a fast paced environment (or in my case, a fast-paced manufacturing environment) and your idea about how good magSafe is will likely change relatively quick..

if you're worried about tripping on the cord and crashing the machine to the floor, coil up the slack near the connection.. you'll then have to trip on the cord and drag it 8' before it snags the laptop.. bonus tip-- this works with all sorts of other tools/machines/plug-in-stuff too.. ;)
nothing?

not charging:

View attachment 772755


not charging:

View attachment 772756


sketchy AF looking:

View attachment 772757


-----
i promise you these aren't setup photos in attempt to make it look worse than it really is.. they're exactly real life conditions and i'm always having to make sure my laptop /cord is in a certain position to get a charge.. also, the magsafe connector is spring loaded and will jam up.. i have to buy a new one about once per year.. judging by my third picture, that time is coming up (although the laptop itself will be replaced soon instead of the power cord).. it will start smoking eventually due to the shorting/flakey connection..

i get it that if these things are always used in calm/clean/controlled environments then you may have better luck with them but bring them into a fast paced environment (or in my case, a fast-paced manufacturing environment) and your idea about how good magSafe is will likely change relatively quick..

if you're worried about tripping on the cord and crashing the machine to the floor, coil up the slack near the connection.. you'll then have to trip on the cord and drag it 8' before it snags the laptop.. bonus tip-- this works with all sorts of other tools/machines/plug-in-stuff too.. ;)
Clearly the Mac pictured has been mistreated therefore not an accurate representation if the advantages of MagSafe.
 
How about you? At 2:29-2-30 he mentions the performance advatage is slight. Then at 2:36 show a graphic with their aveage clock speeds under load. 2.9 vs 3.0. With XPS and Zenbook Pro's extra weight and extra few millimeters - you're telling that they can only do 100 MHz better while being significantly louder?

CPU clock speed is just 1 variable of an aggregate that affects performance. You could have higher clock speeds and still be less performant than another computer that has lower clock speeds. That is all I am saying. The loudness factor is a red herring for most people that do this type of work. If you are rendering anything, your fans are going to turn on full blast regardless.
 
The chips spec sheet shows there's more gas in it! The VRMs are part of it but the root issue is the case limits the cooling. The rigidness of Apple not addressing the systems cooling is the issue here. No one is expecting a gamers box, just one a bit bigger to offer the needed cooling to get us further up into the turbo space of this chip. Throttling it to be mostly as the base frequency is what most video pro's are complaining about. Why should I spend that kind of cash for such little gain.
[doublepost=1532621155][/doublepost]

That was a bad design by the Apple engineers! I too believed that made sense until my sailer friend explain why it was bad. Since then I loosely coil the cable and use a velcro cable strap leaving it in a uniform circle with all of my cables.
[doublepost=1532621842][/doublepost]

Just like you can be a little pregnant ;-}

Apple blurred the line with the MacBooks! The new MacBook should have been an Air, the current MacBook Pro's the MacBook and the MIA is the missing real MacBook Pro. The iMac series is a bit different as the iMac Pro is more Pro'ish with its CPU's and still carries all of the ports forward. The Headless Mac's Mac Mini & Mac Pro follow with the newer Mac Pro having more ports, but lost the storage bays in favor of one SSD which also was a mistake besides the cooling issues it had.

I fully realize systems leapfrog until the things get worked out over time its just the MacBook Pro got lost here with the Thin is in effort. This is were Apple needs to get back to back filling the high end MacBook Pro without compromising performance the previous generations had in their time points.


Hi, I don't understand your reference. But being a MacBook Pro owner since the first generation I never thought as them as mobile workstations like a comparable Dell or whatever else that was available at the time. From those the first generation MacBooks and MacBook Pros the Pro always meant something sort of better than the regular MacBook.

But speaking of blurring lines what about the generation of MacBooks that shared the same unibody design as the MacBook Pro.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.