MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[wallysb01]

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but the CPU's in the new MBP's are the i7-8750H, i7-8850H, and the i9-8950HK.
Their TDP is rated at 45W, although the 8750/8850 can be downrated to 35W.
The real question is whether the 2016 and 2017 MBP's had similarly extreme throttling issues. Since those CPU's had the same TDP in the same chassis, if throttling wasn't an issue then, it is not unreasonable to assume the problem lies with the new CPU's.

To an extent, yes, its Intel's fault. They haven't delivered on 10nm, which would certainly help with shoving 6 cores into a mobile computer. But, I see this as a situation similar to the 2013 nMP, which couldn't get updates because everything coming out of Intel and AMD was more power hungry and caused more heat. No one really asked for the MacBook Pro to loose .25cm of height, .96 cm of width and .64 cm of depth in the 2016 remodel (may not sound like a lot, but that reduces the internal volume, assuming a box shape, by 293 cm^3, or 18%). Once again, Apple made something as thin and compact as they could and have payed the price because Intel and AMD couldn't continue to operate in that thermal envelope while still giving good performance increases. The problem with this strategy of making things as small as possible is compounded then by refusing to do form factor updates more frequently than about every 4 years for their laptops. Here we are on year 3 of a form factor and the thermals just don't make sense for a computer that's supposed to use the very best mobile processors out there, but Apple stubbornly won't modify the form factor.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around here. Intel hasn't delivered on its roadmaps, which I'm sure Apple took into account, and Apple refuses to call an audible when the landscape shifts underneath them.

 

[pl1984]

To an extent, yes, its Intel's fault. They haven't delivered on 10nm, which would certainly help with shoving 6 cores into a mobile computer. But, I see this as a situation similar to the 2013 nMP, which couldn't get updates because everything coming out of Intel and AMD was more power hungry and caused more heat. No one really asked for the MacBook Pro to loose .25cm of height, .96 cm of width and .64 cm of depth in the 2016 remodel (may not sound like a lot, but that reduces the internal volume, assuming a box shape, by 293 cm^3, or 18%. Once again, Apple made something as thin and compact as they could and have payed the price because Intel and AMD couldn't continue to operate in that thermal envelope while still giving good performance increases. The problem with this strategy of making things as small as possible is compounded then by refusing to do form factor updates more frequently than about every 4 years for their laptops. Here we are on year 3 of a form factor and the thermals just don't make sense for a computer that's supposed to use the very best mobile processors out there, but Apple stubbornly won't modify the form factor.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around here. Intel hasn't delivered on its roadmaps, which I'm sure Apple took into account, and Apple refuses to call an audible when the landscape shifts underneath them.

The only one at fault is Apple. It's their system and it was they who decide which processors and when to use in them.

 

[ManuelGomes]

I only wonder how Apple didn't see this coming. Extensive testing must have been made, and if throttling starts quite soon after loading the CPU, they must have had this issue too in their labs.
Has anyone tested if throttling occurs when sending emojis? If not, maybe that's why they never had the issue.
Maybe Apple wants to sell you an iFridge too, maybe hooked up through TB3.

 

[koyoot]

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but the CPU's in the new MBP's are the i7-8750H, i7-8850H, and the i9-8950HK.

Their TDP is rated at 45W, although the 8750/8850 can be downrated to 35W.

The real question is whether the 2016 and 2017 MBP's had similarly extreme throttling issues. Since those CPU's had the same TDP in the same chassis, if throttling wasn't an issue then, it is not unreasonable to assume the problem lies with the new CPU's.

It was exactly what I was trying to say. If "lower TDP" CPU, with similar voltage, and lower clocks is vastly exceeding the power threshold, don't expect different story from the same die, and higher clock speeds.

 

[zephonic]

To an extent, yes, its Intel's fault. They haven't delivered on 10nm, which would certainly help with shoving 6 cores into a mobile computer. But, I see this as a situation similar to the 2013 nMP, which couldn't get updates because everything coming out of Intel and AMD was more power hungry and caused more heat. No one really asked for the MacBook Pro to loose .25cm of height, .96 cm of width and .64 cm of depth in the 2016 remodel (may not sound like a lot, but that reduces the internal volume, assuming a box shape, by 293 cm^3, or 18%. Once again, Apple made something as thin and compact as they could and have payed the price because Intel and AMD couldn't continue to operate in that thermal envelope while still giving good performance increases. The problem with this strategy of making things as small as possible is compounded then by refusing to do form factor updates more frequently than about every 4 years for their laptops. Here we are on year 3 of a form factor and the thermals just don't make sense for a computer that's supposed to use the very best mobile processors out there, but Apple stubbornly won't modify the form factor.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around here. Intel hasn't delivered on its roadmaps, which I'm sure Apple took into account, and Apple refuses to call an audible when the landscape shifts underneath them.

To me it looks like a timing issue. Designing a new chassis is costly and I assume Apple needs to keep them out there for at least three or four years to have it make sense financially.

They designed them around LPDDR memory but the market bawled and demanded more memory capacity, so they caved and put in regular DDR4.

Maybe they knew the i9-8950HK runs hotter, but decided to put it in there anyway, because if they don't everybody is gonna bawl some more and take it as proof that Apple doesn't care about the "pros".

Bringing a new chassis to market probably takes two years, but if they wait that long with putting a 6-core in the MBP, everybody is gonna bawl some more and take it as proof that Apple doesn't care about the "pros".


To me, it looks like they caved to the internet pressure from the "pros", and they put this out there just to show they care about the "pros".
Probably not the right decision, but it's a bit of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

 

[wallysb01]

The only one at fault is Apple. It's their system and it was they who decide which processors and when to use in them.

Apple's choices don't exist in a vacuum. While they are by no means forced to use these hot 6 core chips, moving to the 8th generation and not doing so would be a marketing nightmare, one that would probably be worse than not moving to the 8th gen at all. Apple was really between a rock and a hard place here. I'm definitely not absolving them of blame, but once this form factor existed (which was their first mistake and is what most of their blame needs to be pin on) and the 8th gen chips where on the table, they may have been left with no good options, especially given the extremely slow nature of their hardware design changes. Which again, that's Apple's fault, but they may not have been given enough time to make such a large operational change to get these chips in a Mac before a possible new chip arrives anyway. After all, this should be a problem a move to 10nm solves, so if you're Apple, its not an easy cost/benefit problem to solve.
[doublepost=1532027220][/doublepost]

To me it looks like a timing issue. Designing a new chassis is costly and I assume Apple needs to keep them out there for at least three or four years to have it make sense financially.

They designed them around LPDDR memory but the market bawled and demanded more memory capacity, so they caved and put in regular DDR4.

Maybe they knew the i9-8950HK runs hotter, but decided to put it in there anyway, because if they don't everybody is gonna bawl some more and take it as proof that Apple doesn't care about the "pros".

Bringing a new chassis to market probably takes two years, but if they wait that long with putting a 6-core in the MBP, everybody is gonna bawl some more and take it as proof that Apple doesn't care about the "pros".


To me, it looks like they caved to the internet pressure from the "pros", and they put this out there just to show they care about the "pros".
Probably not the right decision, but it's a bit of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

This is my take as well. If a new chassis was off the table once the thermals of the i9 and even i7s were known, Apple had effed itself from its design decision 2+ years ago. They are just trying to pack too much into this small form factor. More power hungry (hotter I'm sure) RAM, and now more battery (so less space to dissipate heat). It all just spiraled due to bad timing, a limiting design decision from Apple and constant delays from Intel. When the new chassis of the MBP was being designed, Intel was stilling going off the tick-tock model, correct? There was never supposed to be a 14++, at that time, no?

 

[pl1984]

Apple's choices don't exist in a vacuum. While they are by no means forced to use these hot 6 core chips, moving to the 8th generation and not doing so would be a marketing nightmare, one that would probably be worse than not moving to the 8th gen at all. Apple was really between a rock and a hard place here. I'm definitely not absolving them of blame, but once this form factor existed (which was their first mistake and is what most of their blame needs to be pin on) and the 8th gen chips where on the table, they may have been left with no good options, especially given the extremely slow nature of their hardware design changes. Which again, that's Apple's fault, but they may not have been given enough time to make such a large operational change to get these chips in a Mac before a possible new chip arrives anyway. After all, this should be a problem a move to 10nm solves, so if you're Apple, its not an easy cost/benefit problem to solve.

They don't operate in a vacuum but the choice, or not, to use these chips is solely theirs. To my knowledge Intel didn't strongarm them into using these chips. Nor did Intel strongarm them into the current form factor. Intel is not to blame. Customers are not to blame (since when did Apple start listening to their customers anyway?). This is Apple's product based on Apple's decisions.

 

[wallysb01]

They don't operate in a vacuum but the choice, or not, to use these chips is solely theirs. To my knowledge Intel didn't strongarm them into using these chips. Nor did Intel strongarm them into the current form factor. Intel is not to blame. Customers are not to blame (since when did Apple start listening to their customers anyway?). This is Apple's product based on Apple's decisions.

Hey, I blame Apple a ton for this. But I do not understand why you want to ignore Intel's role. Its not like there is only X amount of blame to go around and if Intel gets some percent, then Apple somehow gets less blame. This doesn't have to add to 1. Intel produced supposedly mobile chips, slapped the same TDPs and at least in the case of the i7s, the same series names to them. Intel is setting consumer expectations that those chips can fit in the same designs as before. Intel put all of the laptop manufactures in a bind here. All because their 10nm process is now about 2 years late.

Anyway, tell me how much you blame Apple. I'll blame them the same amount. I'll then add still more blame to universe and place it on Intel. Good enough?

 

[AidenShaw]

Anyway, tell me how much you blame Apple. I'll blame them the same amount. I'll then add still more blame to universe and place it on Intel. Good enough?

Not good enough.

How can you blame Intel for Apple's decision to design themselves into a thermal corner (again)?

And I'm amused by the comments that "a new case design" would be a horrible expense. It would be a rounding error on Apple's margins.

The real problem is that a certain Brit can't be convinced that Apple's flagship mobile workstation should be a fraction of a centimeter thicker. Get rid of the real problem.

 

[pl1984]

Hey, I blame Apple a ton for this. But I do not understand why you want to ignore Intel's role. Its not like there is only X amount of blame to go around and if Intel gets some percent, then Apple somehow gets less blame. This doesn't have to add to 1. Intel produced supposedly mobile chips, slapped the same TDPs and at least in the case of the i7s, the same series names to them. Intel is setting consumer expectations that those chips can fit in the same designs as before. Intel put all of the laptop manufactures in a bind here. All because their 10nm process is now about 2 years late.

They are mobile chips, the fact they may be too hot for Apple's laptops does not make them any less so. As for watts consumed if you can demonstrate Intel is misleading with their number then I'll reconsider if Intel should have any blame. Can you?

Anyway, tell me how much you blame Apple. I'll blame them the same amount. I'll then add still more blame to universe and place it on Intel. Good enough?

I blame Apple 100% for this. It's their product and therefore entirely on their shoulders unless you can demonstrate some reason it should not be.

 

[-hh]

And aren’t 5,1 (last cheese grater) provided it has a card that can support metal?

Already answered 'Yes' ... but does anyone have a URL to where there's a list of 5,1 compatible and Metal-capable GPUs?

-hh

 

[zephonic]

They are mobile chips, the fact they may be too hot for Apple's laptops does not make them any less so. As for watts consumed if you can demonstrate Intel is misleading with their number then I'll reconsider if Intel should have any blame. Can you?

I can't, but they were just released so it will take some time for the truth to be established. However, the point stands: if the i9 has the same TDP (45W) as previous generations, there shouldn't be extreme throttling issues. The 2016/2017 MBP's and even the 2018 i7's don't seem to have the same problem.

On another forum someone said that other i9 laptops also exhibited similar throttling issues, but I haven't seen anything authoritative on that yet.

I'm not saying Apple is blameless here, at the very least they didn't do their due diligence, and most likely they knew about it but decided to ship anyway.

But like I said, if they hadn't shipped these, everybody here would be bawling that Apple no longer cares about the "pros". In this particular situation, they can't win.

 

[AidenShaw]

But like I said, if they hadn't shipped these, everybody here would be bawling that Apple no longer cares about the "pros". In this particular situation, they can't win.

Apple would win if they'd ignore the Brit and make the case a bit thicker with better thermals.

That may even give Apple room to put one or two more M.2 slots internally. (My old T440s has two M.2 slots, which are very useful. It also has a 2.5" 9.5mm SATA slot.)

Isn't it scary to think that Jony Ive may be spending his time on the design of the MP7,1 ???

 

[pl1984]

I can't, but they were just released so it will take some time for the truth to be established. However, the point stands: if the i9 has the same TDP (45W) as previous generations, there shouldn't be extreme throttling issues. The 2016/2017 MBP's and even the 2018 i7's don't seem to have the same problem.

Is it your assertion Intel is being misleading on the thermal properties of the i9? I'm willing to accept that if you can provide something demonstrating as much. Can you?

On another forum someone said that other i9 laptops also exhibited similar throttling issues, but I haven't seen anything authoritative on that yet.

I'm not saying Apple is blameless here, at the very least they didn't do their due diligence, and most likely they knew about it but decided to ship anyway.

But like I said, if they hadn't shipped these, everybody here would be bawling that Apple no longer cares about the "pros". In this particular situation, they can't win.

Apple is 100% to blame for this. It's their laptop design. It was their decision to put these processors in a case which most people agree is insufficient to properly cool not only this processor but other versions.

 

[profdraper]

Not good enough. And I'm amused by the comments that "a new case design" would be a horrible expense. It would be a rounding error on Apple's margins.

Agreed: From a trillion $ Phone company? they were able to do new thermals and case for the iMac Pro in advance of new Intel; should be ditto for MBP.

There's now a lot of real 'pro' bench-tests out there now & it is a real thing. Litigious territory: the MPB can't near deliver on advertised base clock speeds (let alone the far more slippery expectation for turbo). Subsequently I cancelled my 15" MBP i9 order and went for a Dell XPS instead. Oh, $2k less including 'real' 3 year on-site and accidental breakage coverage, a touch pen and USB-C adapters etc.

 

[pl1984]

Agreed: From a trillion $ Phone company? they were able to do new thermals and case for the iMac Pro in advance of new Intel; should be ditto for MBP.

The argument also assumes Apple is standing still on their MBP development and doesn't have a several designs on the drawing board. Of course this assumes said designs aren't even thinner / smaller than the current offering.

 

[wallysb01]

Not good enough.

How can you blame Intel for Apple's decision to design themselves into a thermal corner (again)?

Strawman. I didn't say anything about blaming Intel for Apple's mistakes. I'm blaming Intel for making inefficient chips and being way late on roadmaps they no doubt show partners like Apple....

And I'm amused by the comments that "a new case design" would be a horrible expense. It would be a rounding error on Apple's margins.

It my not be a particularly large expense relative to Apple's balance sheet, but it does take time as well. Everything has an opportunity cost. The people that would design that new case once Intel's chips came out and they were too hot were either working at apple already but doing something else they'd have to be pulled off of, or Apple would need hire a new team. Both things can happen, but how long would you estimate they knew this was going to be such a problem?

The real problem is that a certain Brit can't be convinced that Apple's flagship mobile workstation should be a fraction of a centimeter thicker. Get rid of the real problem.

Someone pass me the axe, I'll do it.
[doublepost=1532041928][/doublepost]

Is it your assertion Intel is being misleading on the thermal properties of the i9? I'm willing to accept that if you can provide something demonstrating as much. Can you?

Look at the power draw here. The system is spiking to 90W, dropping to <50, then trying to go back up, but can't go maintain anything above 60W. On my 2014, 4980HQ maintains its base frequency in a prime95 test on all 4 cores drawing 40-45W. This is a hot, power hungry chip. Now of course, Apple could have skipped the i9 and I don't think a lot of people would have cared, but the 2.6 i7 is also showing some signs of throttling.

Intel's failures play role here, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

 

[joebclash]

The first rule of engineering is designing your system based on know limitations. Apple seem to have ignored all that. This is not the first time either. How about the iphone 6 issue with battery? Is intel to blame for that too? Apple clocked their own chip too high for the battery. I'm sorry but apple needs to take a punch in the gut for all these engineering issues they have created for themselves. They have strayed too far into style over substance. As a long time apple user since the Apple IIc, this sickens me to the core.

 

[pl1984]

Strawman. I didn't say anything about blaming Intel for Apple's mistakes. I'm blaming Intel for making inefficient chips and being way late on roadmaps they no doubt show partners like Apple....

Inefficient for who?

Look at the power draw here. The system is spiking to 90W, dropping to <50, then trying to go back up, but can't go maintain anything above 60W. On my 2014, 4980HQ maintains its base frequency in a prime95 test on all 4 cores drawing 40-45W. This is a hot, power hungry chip. Now of course, Apple could have skipped the i9 and I don't think a lot of people would have cared, but the 2.6 i7 is also showing some signs of throttling.

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see anything in the video which even suggested Intel was being misleading about the thermal properties of the i9 used in the MBP.

Intel's failures play role here, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

There is no failure on Intel's part. If the i9 isn't suitable for the MBP then Apple shouldn't be using it in the MBP. Please do keep in mind Intel doesn't make the i9 exclusively for Apple's MBP. They make the i9 and sell it to whomever wishes to purchase it. How that buyer uses it is solely on the buyers shoulders, not Intel's.

 

[AidenShaw]

Someone pass me the axe, I'll do it.

Considering the connection across the pond, this may be more appropriate:

​

Just kidding. Regardless of the harm that Jony has done to Apple - personal harm to Jony is never justified.

Early termination and a $500M bonus would be enough.

 

[pl1984]

Just kidding. Early termination and a $500M bonus would be enough.

Given he's such a fan of thin and small I think the same should apply to his severance: $1 ought to do it.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm blaming Intel for making inefficient chips and being way late on roadmaps they no doubt show partners like Apple....

In case you've never been involved in NDA presentations from vendors - there are never any firm commitments. A "roadmap" is not a commitment on either features or dates - it's a best guess on what/when will come out.

Any company that bases its product line on multi-year roadmaps from vendors will pay the price.

Or people buying MacBooks will pay the price.

And the issue isn't about "inefficient" CPUs, I'm buying servers with 205W Xeons - because 28 core CPUs are efficient for me.

The issue is about Apple putting mobile i9s in systems that cannot handle the TDP of the chips. If Apple designs an anorexic laptop that can cool a 25W TDP CPU, they shouldn't put a 45W TDP CPU in it.

 

[zephonic]

And the issue isn't about "inefficient" CPUs, it's about Apple putting them in systems that cannot handle the TDP of the chips. If Apple designs an anorexic laptop that can cool a 25W TDP CPU, they shouldn't put a 45W TDP CPU in it.

But that's the point everybody here seems to disregard, the other CPU's are also rated at 45W TDP, and they don't exhibit the same extreme throttling!

edit:

I thought there was some 2018 i7 results in those videos, but that seems to be the 2017 model. I'd be interested to see if the 2018 i7's exhibit the same behavior as the i9.

 

[AidenShaw]

Litigious territory: the MPB can't near deliver on advertised base clock speeds (let alone the far more slippery expectation for turbo).

Release the lawyers!

Maybe the fines, judgements and bad press will convince Cook to get rid of Ive.

 

[pl1984]

But that's the point everybody here seems to disregard, the other CPU's are also rated at 45W TDP, and they don't exhibit the same extreme throttling!

I've been saying thermal properties and not TDP. Is it your opinion Apple pointed their web browser to Ark for the details about the i9? Or do you think perhaps they used more technical documentation Intel makes available for their processors?