Waiting for the 2019 MBP [Merged]

[koyoot]

144Hz, IPS Panels are using up to 60W of power.

It will be VERY hard for Apple to do 500 Nit(HDR400 capable display), 120 Hz, That is as efficient as the display in current MBPs is.

 

[gadgetfreaky]

144Hz, IPS Panels are using up to 60W of power.

It will be VERY hard for Apple to do 500 Nit(HDR400 capable display), 120 Hz, That is as efficient as the display in current MBPs is.

yeah but as mentioned can't it just downscale like in the iPad when that rate is not needed or to conserve battery power?

what's the power draw on the current screen by comparison?

 

[koyoot]

yeah but as mentioned can't it just downscale like in the iPad when that rate is not needed or to conserve battery power?

what's the power draw on the current screen by comparison?

Its all about PSU, and power draw of the CPU+GPU. CPU is right now running at up to 50W, GPU - 35W TDP. PSU has 85W of power, so something has to throttle. And that 85W of power has to power WHOLE computer: Motherboard, RAM, GPU, CPU, Display. Not being able to maintain higher clock speeds on 6 cores is not coming from air.

 

[Falhófnir]

Its all about PSU, and power draw of the CPU+GPU. CPU is right now running at up to 50W, GPU - 35W TDP. PSU has 85W of power, so something has to throttle. And that 85W of power has to power WHOLE computer: Motherboard, RAM, GPU, CPU, Display. Not being able to maintain higher clock speeds on 6 cores is not coming from air.

The 87W adapter should be enough as theoretically there should be a 45W cap on power draw from the CPU. If the higher refresh screen does draw more power (I don’t see that it should be a huge difference, more that it’s making the GPU work a bit harder) they do still have some room (up to 100W) to increase the power adapter’s rated output.

 

[koyoot]

The 87W adapter should be enough as theoretically there should be a 45W cap on power draw from the CPU. If the higher refresh screen does draw more power (I don’t see that it should be a huge difference, more that it’s making the GPU work a bit harder) they do still have some room (up to 100W) to increase the power adapter’s rated output.

Current display I think draws around 5-8W of power. 120 Hz display would draw around 20-25W of power, especially 500 nit display. It is a HUGE difference.

I have just watched Pixio PX277h review, 27 inch, 1440p, 144 Hz IPS, 350 nit display, that is rated at 60W of power consumption, in worst case scenario(highest brightness). High refresh is absolutely not a free thing.

I would see this display be possible, especially paired with AMD Navi for Mobile, next year(2304 GCN cores, 128 Bit memory bus, around 1.4 GHz core clocks, around 150 mm2 die size), which should drive 120 Hz, 2880x1800 display perfectly well.

But the question remaining - power draw of the display itself.

 

[gadgetfreaky]

Current display I think draws around 5-8W of power. 120 Hz display would draw around 20-25W of power, especially 500 nit display. It is a HUGE difference.

I have just watched Pixio PX277h review, 27 inch, 1440p, 144 Hz IPS, 350 nit display, that is rated at 60W of power consumption, in worst case scenario(highest brightness). High refresh is absolutely not a free thing.

I would see this display be possible, especially paired with AMD Navi for Mobile, next year(2304 GCN cores, 128 Bit memory bus, around 1.4 GHz core clocks, around 150 mm2 die size), which should drive 120 Hz, 2880x1800 display perfectly well.

But the question remaining - power draw of the display itself.

So you are saying it's beyond the linear 2x difference - basically 4x as much power draw. Why?

 

[Queen6]

I don’t like the sercurity implications - especially with faceid which can do fancy stuff like gaze tracking. Imagine what nefarious advertisers/social media manipulators could do if they could not only tell what page you see but they could also tell where and for how long you look on a page?

Never use the face recognition with Windows notebooks, last thing I want is the computer auto-unlocking with an impromptu glance. Simply not appropriate in many professional environment's IMHO.

Q-6

 

[macintoshmac]

My issue is it's much more fun to read on my iPad w/ the 120 than my laptop - and that really shouldn't be the case given it's a 2017 mbp.

How do you mean? I was not interested in an iPad so have not tried out the 120MHz.
[doublepost=1533360162][/doublepost]

Its all about PSU, and power draw of the CPU+GPU. CPU is right now running at up to 50W, GPU - 35W TDP. PSU has 85W of power, so something has to throttle. And that 85W of power has to power WHOLE computer: Motherboard, RAM, GPU, CPU, Display. Not being able to maintain higher clock speeds on 6 cores is not coming from air.

The 87W adapter should be enough as theoretically there should be a 45W cap on power draw from the CPU. If the higher refresh screen does draw more power (I don’t see that it should be a huge difference, more that it’s making the GPU work a bit harder) they do still have some room (up to 100W) to increase the power adapter’s rated output.

Current display I think draws around 5-8W of power. 120 Hz display would draw around 20-25W of power, especially 500 nit display. It is a HUGE difference.

I have just watched Pixio PX277h review, 27 inch, 1440p, 144 Hz IPS, 350 nit display, that is rated at 60W of power consumption, in worst case scenario(highest brightness). High refresh is absolutely not a free thing.

I would see this display be possible, especially paired with AMD Navi for Mobile, next year(2304 GCN cores, 128 Bit memory bus, around 1.4 GHz core clocks, around 150 mm2 die size), which should drive 120 Hz, 2880x1800 display perfectly well.

But the question remaining - power draw of the display itself.

This makes me think they will need to seriously re-work and re-engineer the laptop, and so this could become a reality only in the next whole refresh. interesting times ahead!
[doublepost=1533360385][/doublepost]

Just out of curiosity - why would you pick a Mac if you are using Windows 99% of the time?
I use Windows all the time, but I am tempted to switch to Mac so that I can sync between iPhone, iPad and Mac, and use Windows on Mac when needed or until I get used to Mac OS but then I tend to hold back because I can't justify the price given Windows laptops are also good quality and much cheaper.

Thinner, lighter, and macOS. Ability to run Windows in VM or Bootcamp, not worrying about driver updates, etc. are things I can think of. Not using Bootcamp, only use VM for some software that I need for specific purposes.

 

[koyoot]

So you are saying it's beyond the linear 2x difference - basically 4x as much power draw. Why?

Because its always a matter of transistor switches, just like in typical silicon transistor frequency.

For 10% more performance you have to give 23% more power. It's especially apparent with Ryzen CPUs. You are overclocking the display by a manner of 2x. Why do you expect it to consume 2x power, when the amount of work hardware has to do is much out of its comfort zone? Display is always complex thing. You can save power by using more efficient LEDs. But the frequency of the refresh rate will always drive power consumption up.

 

[Falhófnir]

This article suggests 120hz would be ok as not enough to kick the GPU into a higher power mode. As a broader point it seems to suggest the GPU is the main reason for increased power draw, not the screen itself (which is what I assumed to be the case):

https://www.pcgamer.com/144hz-monitors-and-nvidia-gpus-draw-surprising-amounts-of-power/

 

[koyoot]

This article suggests 120hz would be ok as not enough to kick the GPU into a higher power mode. As a broader point it seems to suggest the GPU is the main reason for increased power draw, not the screen itself (which is what I assumed to be the case):

https://www.pcgamer.com/144hz-monitors-and-nvidia-gpus-draw-surprising-amounts-of-power/

The total power consumption of the system at IDLE state(where the CPU is running at 2W of power because that PL1(Idle) state set in the BIOS), and GPU at 5W of power in the same PL1 state was 74W of power. Total power MBP PSU is capable of delivering 87W. The computer in Idle with any GPU draws around 35W of power(Because that is the typical Intel based platform power draw of Mobo, RAM, Storage, etc). The monitor was drawing the rest - around 40W of power.

It does not compute.

 

[chleuasme]

c'mon Apple, it's only 2018


• Consumer: (no TouchBar, audio in-out, 2 Type-C USB/TB3 ports, SD card reader)

13.3-in. quad 15W $999+
4 MPx 2560x1600 px (227 ppi) std: 1280x800 pts (2x) up to: 1680x1050 pts (2x scaled)

15.4-in. quad 28W $1500+
5 MPx 2880x1800 px (220 ppi) std: 1440x900 pts (2x) up to: 1920x1200 pts (2x scaled)


• Mobility: (no TouchBar, audio in-out, 1 Type-C USB/TB3 port)

12-in. dual 5W (fanless) $1200+
4 MPx 2560x1600 px (252 ppi) std: 1280x800 pts (2x) up to: 1536x960 pts (2x scaled)


• Prosumer: (TouchBar, audio in-out, 4 Type-C USB/TB3 ports, thin bezels)

14-in. quad 28W + dGPU opt. $1700+
8 MPx 3584x2240 px (302 ppi) std: 1440x900 pts (3x scaled) up to: 1792x1120 pts (2x)

16-in. hexa 45W + dGPU $2200+
10 MPx 4096x2560 px (302 ppi) std: 1680x1050 pts (3x scaled) up to: 2048x1280 pts (2x)

 

[eagerwu]

Well, I was going to purchase 2018 MBP to replace my 2011 MBP, but after seeing possible problems with T2 and Bridge OS, I guess I will wait another year and hope Apple fixes all these issues.

Don’t hesitate and just go get yourself one of those. The T2 issue can be easily fixed by the later update. 2018 is a perfect machine.

 

[afir93]

Don’t hesitate and just go get yourself one of those. The T2 issue can be easily fixed by the later update. 2018 is a perfect machine.

Yep, plus he could always return the machine if these issues pop up. This doesn't seem to be like the keyboard issues with previous models which you might suddenly get years down the road; this Bridge OS error is something you seemingly either get from the start or not at all, so warranty claims in case that it does show up shouldn't be an issue (and it's a pretty rare issue to begin with). Have had zero issues like that with mine.

 

[narcolpetic-haze]

I haven't read the whole thread so it may have already been brought up, but for those disappointed about the display not getting a resolution or refresh rate update etc, don't count out the inclusion of TrueTone on the 2018 models. It wasn't something I myself had even thought about but boy it really makes a difference to general use. A couple of times I've forgotten it was a thing, then remembered and switched it off to compare and blam! My eyes were ravaged by harsh blue/green tint (presumably the screens "normal" state), then I turn TrueTone back on and Ahhh, nice and cosy warm colours.

 

[macintoshmac]

I haven't read the whole thread so it may have already been brought up, but for those disappointed about the display not getting a resolution or refresh rate update etc, don't count out the inclusion of TrueTone on the 2018 models. It wasn't something I myself had even thought about but boy it really makes a difference to general use. A couple of times I've forgotten it was a thing, then remembered and switched it off to compare and blam! My eyes were ravaged by harsh blue/green tint (presumably the screens "normal" state), then I turn TrueTone back on and Ahhh, nice and cosy warm colours.

I love True Tone on my iPhone 8 and would surely love it on the Mac. However.. the upgrade/ trade-in cost is way too high.

 

[gaanee]

Does f.lux gives similar effect as true tone? It won't be automatic though if you move around with your macbook, but it's free and can be installed on any computer, so is the effect of changes the color temperature similar?

 

[Eason85]

The total power consumption of the system at IDLE state(where the CPU is running at 2W of power because that PL1(Idle) state set in the BIOS), and GPU at 5W of power in the same PL1 state was 74W of power. Total power MBP PSU is capable of delivering 87W. The computer in Idle with any GPU draws around 35W of power(Because that is the typical Intel based platform power draw of Mobo, RAM, Storage, etc). The monitor was drawing the rest - around 40W of power.

It does not compute.

I don't know where you are getting these numbers from, unless I'm completely misunderstanding your calculation. Are you using numbers of a tower desktop PC with desktop components? TOTAL Power draw in idle state on my 4K XPS 15 9570 (i7-8750H, 1TB SSD, 16gb DDR4) is 7-8 W.

If ySeeing as the Gigabyte Aero 15X with 144hz panel has basically the same battery life as the previous one with 60hz, and the Razer Blade 15 with 144hz panel gets 8 hours of battery life, and the GS65 gets around 8 hours of battery life, all with 144hz screens, something is off.

edit: ok, yeah it seems you were comparing a large desktop monitor with a desktop nvidia gpu and desktop CPU to a mobile system. They are completely incomparable. 144hz panels in laptops don't take that much more power on their own.

 

[KarmaRocket]

Most of the 144Hz panels on laptops are running 1080p. It seems the 4K 60Hz screen that is also available on 144Hz 1080p laptops don't have much of a discrepancy in battery life. I was looking at the Razer Blade 15 and Gigabyte Aero 15X. I read a lot of reviews and it seemed reviewers didn't see much of a difference. Maybe a slight drop.

If Apple made a 4K ProMotion display (120Hz) it could draw more power at it's highest setting but I don't think it would be that drastic.

 

[koyoot]

I don't know where you are getting these numbers from, unless I'm completely misunderstanding your calculation. Are you using numbers of a tower desktop PC with desktop components? TOTAL Power draw in idle state on my 4K XPS 15 9570 (i7-8750H, 1TB SSD, 16gb DDR4) is 7-8 W.

If ySeeing as the Gigabyte Aero 15X with 144hz panel has basically the same battery life as the previous one with 60hz, and the Razer Blade 15 with 144hz panel gets 8 hours of battery life, and the GS65 gets around 8 hours of battery life, all with 144hz screens, something is off.

edit: ok, yeah it seems you were comparing a large desktop monitor with a desktop nvidia gpu and desktop CPU to a mobile system. They are completely incomparable. 144hz panels in laptops don't take that much more power on their own.

I was not comparing Desktop to mobile computer. I seriously suggest reading the context. I was just showing people who want 120 Hz display in MBP that it would be VERY hard from technical point of view, especially if you would want to actually use it for something else than browsing the web, while everything else would be idle. ALL of high refresh rate displays will use more power. Yes, in idle state, they will go down to 30-60 Hz, but if you will run any game, the power draw will go up, because of refresh rates. There is a reason why all of high-refresh rate displays in laptops have huge power bricks, which MBPs lack.

There are 61 and 87W PSUs, guys. Gigabyte's Aero 15X PSU has 180W, with GPU that has only 65W higher TDP, than MBP. If you have the same CPU, with the SAME TDP, and GPU that has 65W higher TDP, why do you 100W more power? Well, because 144Hz, 1080P Panel running full tilt will consume significantly more power, than 60 Hz one. There is a reason why Pro-Motion display is just running at times at 120 Hz, and then it powers down to 30 Hz, to save power.

If Apple will be able to make it work, I will be Genuinely staggered.

Most of the 144Hz panels on laptops are running 1080p. It seems the 4K 60Hz screen that is also available on 144Hz 1080p laptops don't have much of a discrepancy in battery life. I was looking at the Razer Blade 15 and Gigabyte Aero 15X. I read a lot of reviews and it seemed reviewers didn't see much of a difference. Maybe a slight drop.

If Apple made a 4K ProMotion display (120Hz) it could draw more power at it's highest setting but I don't think it would be that drastic.

Resolution has nothing to do with power consumption. desktop 4K 60 Hz monitors will use the same amount of power, as desktop 1080p 60 Hz displays.

What matters is: quality of display, brightness, and refreshrates.

 

[Falhófnir]

I was not comparing Desktop to mobile computer. I seriously suggest reading the context. I was just showing people who want 120 Hz display in MBP that it would be VERY hard from technical point of view, especially if you would want to actually use it for something else than browsing the web, while everything else would be idle. ALL of high refresh rate displays will use more power. Yes, in idle state, they will go down to 30-60 Hz, but if you will run any game, the power draw will go up, because of refresh rates. There is a reason why all of high-refresh rate displays in laptops have huge power bricks, which MBPs lack.

There are 61 and 87W PSUs, guys. If Apple will be able to make it work, I will be Genuinely staggered.

Resolution has nothing to do with power consumption. desktop 4K 60 Hz monitors will use the same amount of power, as desktop 1080p 60 Hz displays.

What matters is: quality of display, brightness, and refreshrates.

But this is just it, I’ve yet to see any corroborating article or report that suggests you are right and that higher refresh screens use more power inherently. From what I have read, if there is an inherent extra degree of power usage, it’s marginal. What really causes more power usage is the fact the GPU is having to work harder to push out all the extra frames per second - and in that instance it’s more a case of optimising the GPU so it’s not running flat out just for a bit of web browsing or video playback. If you present something which does explicitly note there is a significant power draw penalty just from having a higher refresh screen, then I’ll gladly reconsider. I think you’ll find the huge power bricks are because as yet most 144hz laptops are gaming machines which run 45W CPUs and GPUs that can draw up to 120W on their own (as an e.g. for the GTX 1060). Don’t forget the iPad pros run 120hz screens off of ultrabook size and smaller batteries for 10 hours, let alone needing to be plugged in (to their 12W chargers).

 

[Eason85]

I was not comparing Desktop to mobile computer. I seriously suggest reading the context. I was just showing people who want 120 Hz display in MBP that it would be VERY hard from technical point of view, especially if you would want to actually use it for something else than browsing the web, while everything else would be idle. ALL of high refresh rate displays will use more power. Yes, in idle state, they will go down to 30-60 Hz, but if you will run any game, the power draw will go up, because of refresh rates. There is a reason why all of high-refresh rate displays in laptops have huge power bricks, which MBPs lack.

There are 61 and 87W PSUs, guys. Gigabyte's Aero 15X PSU has 180W, with GPU that has only 65W higher TDP, than MBP. If you have the same CPU, with the SAME TDP, and GPU that has 65W higher TDP, why do you 100W more power? Well, because 144Hz, 1080P Panel running full tilt will consume significantly more power, than 60 Hz one. There is a reason why Pro-Motion display is just running at times at 120 Hz, and then it powers down to 30 Hz, to save power.

You are right about one thing: 87W is nowhere near enough for a coffee lake MBP. Apple designed themselves into the tiniest corner with 87W charging and such an anemic thermal dissipation solution.

Those 144hz laptops do have 180w power supplies for a reason.

But it's not related to the display.

It's because CFL-H on those laptops uses up to 77W for short term and 57W for long-term turbo. Then they have GTX 1070 GPUs, which can use another 85W (ballpark, this information is withheld). Then you have the other components and screens, audio, charging, etc.

It's coffee lake that requires a lot of power, not 120/144hz panels.

 

[koyoot]

You are right about one thing: 87W is nowhere near enough for a coffee lake MBP. Apple designed themselves into the tiniest corner with 87W charging and such an anemic thermal dissipation solution.

Those 144hz laptops do have 180w power supplies for a reason.

But it's not related to the display.

It's because CFL-H on those laptops uses up to 77W for short term and 57W for long-term turbo. Then they have GTX 1070 GPUs, which can use another 85W (ballpark, this information is withheld). Then you have the other components and screens, audio, charging, etc.

It's coffee lake that requires a lot of power, not 120/144hz panels.

Tell me. Is difference between 5-8W if power consumed by 60 Hz display small amount compared to 20W consumed by 120 Hz display?

 

[Falhófnir]

Tell me. Is difference between 5-8W if power consumed by 60 Hz display small amount compared to 20W consumed by 120 Hz display?

Source please, a near 3x increase doesn’t sound right to me at all.

 

[koyoot]

Power consumption of 120-144 hz displays is in the article You posted here.