Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What's your opinion on the MacBook Pro not being a professional's computer?
- Thread starter MacSumo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Render farms aren't always feasible, so when that's the case, I rely on my own custom built machine (fairly modest build: 32gb ram, i7 quad core haswell). My normal cpu temps range from 26C to 33C. I never peak above 55-60C when under full load due to the cooling system I have. I'm already outgrowing this build, and am eying for a better build once 16gb ddr4 ram sticks become more affordable. Then I'll consider 16gbx8.
As for the rMBP, being my first mac, I was under the impression that it would be suitable for some of the work I do. Unfortunately, I can't even do light digital editing work that relies on color accuracy since the display is so bad. And if I try to do visual Fx and rendering, the system becomes too hot (sustained 95C-100C is not acceptable).
I completely understand that I'm wrong. I should never have thought that Apple was capable of making a decent portable computer that met professional standards, in terms of color accuracy and use of cpu intensive applications.
Apple is for the masses. They appease to the average folk who don't understand how computers work. Why else do they offer one to one services explaining how to do basic tasks? Or why can't the apple "geniuses" answer my technical questions when in store? They are simply sales driven, and that's understandable. But to call their laptops "Pro" is false advertising.
That's primarily why I don't try to go into technical details on this forum as it'll just be a waste of time.
Thanks for your input.
rMBP does not equal pro.
Pro is that ever escaping word that no one agrees upon. It is so different from one person to the next, that I think it's hard to use for any kind of gauge. For the rMBP and any computer, I've always thought of Pro nomenclatures as of better than the lower end computer. That's it.
That should be obvious to you and anyone, but if you're looking for a computer for work, you should be looking at what you require, not the name it has or who makes it. Apple for the masses? I kind of doubt that statement, I'm not sure how it is in the US, but over here way more windows machines get sold than Macs. A Mac is for those who like to work / play / live on OS X.
As a professional, you should be taking a look at what your needs are, not expect something called pro be the end of your search, buy it, and then be surprised it does not meet your requirements, I think that's a pretty stupid way to buy anything.
----------
I must agree with John, these type of threads look for something which isn't immediately obvious to those who are not knowledgable. It's worrying what some people come and do on these forums lately.
My search consisted of reading reviews (which were plenty positive) and comparing the specs on paper. i7 quad core, "retina" display (I was so wrong in thinking this was a quality display, even only at ~16.7million colors), 16gb ram, and 512gb PCIe. I trusted they wouldn't do something underhanded like this.
I'll bite on your hopeless chauvinism.
Perhaps you don't go into technical details because you realize the"details" will be picked apart and destroyed.
I'm all for believing in my own statements. But when you put those statements out as absolute facts, that can mislead and confuse.
Last edited:
Trackpad glitches?
Apple has the best trackpad in the business and its been using the same one since the first unibody Macbook pro which says alot for how far ahead of the PC industry
I feel compelled to point out, again for all the onlookers, that the allegations of "too hot" have never been supported by the OP, and that he's refused to engage on the entire discussion about temperature readings at every turn.
Which, incidentally, sort of makes the second part I've quoted here silly.
----------
And this part is super comical. I'm Ivy League educated and used to manage a team of programmers at a publicly traded company with an office in Silicon Valley. We used MBPs for our work, including some parallel computing stuff that throttled the CPUs all the way up to 100% for hours and sometimes days on end. At no point did they shut themselves down. Would I want to do that non-stop with our MBPs rather than servers? No, as usual, heat is bad for electronics, which is why most people do intensive stuff in a (well cooled) server environment. Occasionally, the machines did get uncomfortably warm, but that's been more of a problem with heavy GPU usage than CPU.
As for why geniuses can't answer technical questions...because that's not what they're trained to do? Just because their customer facing interface caters to those "average masses," as you so arrogantly labeled them, does not mean their machines cannot satisfy professional needs. That should be obvious with elementary logic.
By definition, if you're CPUs are throttling, then the likelihood of shutting down is minimal. As far as proof, you just stated that you've got the processor at 100C. What more do you want?
Jesus, do you not bother to read? Or do you just enjoy selectively replying? I posted a whole bunch of numbers about how different programs return different values, and that it's impossible to tell what's "correct" and what's not with regard to the sensors.
More to the point, 100ish was the maximum value I was able to obtain by running processes designed to stress test the CPU to 100% for an extended period of time. 100 degrees is the Tjunction value for the i7-4950 and other similar processors. So the bottom line is that even if it is hitting 100 degrees slamming the system with everything I have, the fact that it isn't going above that means that...get ready for it...everything is working exactly as intended.
Shocking, I know.
If someone really wants to know what's going on, they should run this stuff under Boot Camp with Intel's Turbo Boost monitor. I expect it will show exactly what it's supposed to show. A separate question is whether better architecture (e.g., better thermal paste and superior application of it) would dissipate heat better so as to permit more Turbo Boosting. That, too, is a testable hypothesis, although not one that I'm personally willing to test.
And where pray tell do you get such fantastical machines ??? I've never seen a 6-12 core Xeon laptop. (And whilst your at it - which bank will remortgage my house so I can buy one ?)
A thought growing in my mind is that I should build my own linux box...although that sounds annoying.
So what if the processor is at 100C ? Who cares ?
eurocom. It can take 4 hard drives, weighs over 5 Kg and the battery is rated for 1 hour.
Including 3D display workstation or mobile server versions.
The cheapest 6-core Xeon build starts at $2500, maybe lower
After 8 pages of posts, it's clear that the OP is not going to change their opinion of the rMBP. Which is fine. It's not the computer for everyone and clearly does not meet the OP's needs. So they should get something else.
What I don't understand is the need to incessantly make the same arguments, dismiss other people's experience with the rMBP, and consider their use requirements to be the be all and end all of what qualifies as "professional" use of the computer.
The use of "professional" in the name of Apple's computers is simply a marketing term (one also used by other computer companies), and a broad one at that. A professional user does not fall into the narrow definition of the OP's use case. Look up the word in the dictionary. A professional is anyone who is engaged in a specified activity as their occupation or a person engaged or qualified in a profession. It does not only mean someone who is using Adobe After Effects.
To make a statement that the MBP/rMBP is not a professional's computer is rather ridiculous. Many professionals use them in their work without a problem. I personally work with a number of them. I also work with professionals who use netbooks and 10 year old notebooks with antiquated (in tech terms) processors. A netbook or 10 year old computer is a professional's computer just as much as an rMBP or other computer as long as it meets their needs.
Just because the rMBP does not meet the OP's needs does not mean it is not a suitable computer for many people in many professions. Perhaps the thread title should be changed to "What's your opinion on the MacBook Pro not being a computer that can handle Adobe After Effects?" to better describe the OP's concerns.
Three years ago I had an Alienware. It was the worst computer I ever owned. It broke non-stop, was fixed incorrectly many times, had a much worse screen than the rMBP, and was just a terrible computer. I didn't go to Dell forums and make an average of 18 posts per day over a five day period criticizing the computer and trying to get other Dell/Alienware users to see how terrible their computers were. I sold my Alienware and got a computer that better suited my needs. Then I went on with my life.
What I don't understand is the need to incessantly make the same arguments, dismiss other people's experience with the rMBP, and consider their use requirements to be the be all and end all of what qualifies as "professional" use of the computer.
The use of "professional" in the name of Apple's computers is simply a marketing term (one also used by other computer companies), and a broad one at that. A professional user does not fall into the narrow definition of the OP's use case. Look up the word in the dictionary. A professional is anyone who is engaged in a specified activity as their occupation or a person engaged or qualified in a profession. It does not only mean someone who is using Adobe After Effects.
To make a statement that the MBP/rMBP is not a professional's computer is rather ridiculous. Many professionals use them in their work without a problem. I personally work with a number of them. I also work with professionals who use netbooks and 10 year old notebooks with antiquated (in tech terms) processors. A netbook or 10 year old computer is a professional's computer just as much as an rMBP or other computer as long as it meets their needs.
Just because the rMBP does not meet the OP's needs does not mean it is not a suitable computer for many people in many professions. Perhaps the thread title should be changed to "What's your opinion on the MacBook Pro not being a computer that can handle Adobe After Effects?" to better describe the OP's concerns.
Three years ago I had an Alienware. It was the worst computer I ever owned. It broke non-stop, was fixed incorrectly many times, had a much worse screen than the rMBP, and was just a terrible computer. I didn't go to Dell forums and make an average of 18 posts per day over a five day period criticizing the computer and trying to get other Dell/Alienware users to see how terrible their computers were. I sold my Alienware and got a computer that better suited my needs. Then I went on with my life.
Last edited:
Thats ridiculous. A 5kg machine with a 1hour battery life....better to get a desktop
get a new mac pro and some kind of portable power supply and a small display
that would be more portable
soooo sorry for the bump on this stupid thread... I am tired of seeing it come up. There are so many other worthy topics of discussion. I implore everyone, please stop perpetuating this farcical topic.
Thats ridiculous. A 5kg machine with a 1hour battery life....better to get a desktop
I said that is not really portable, but transportable. That is why I will have to make do with a mobile workstation.
But it has its uses.
Jesus, do you not bother to read? Or do you just enjoy selectively replying? I posted a whole bunch of numbers about how different programs return different values, and that it's impossible to tell what's "correct" and what's not with regard to the sensors.
More to the point, 100ish was the maximum value I was able to obtain by running processes designed to stress test the CPU to 100% for an extended period of time. 100 degrees is the Tjunction value for the i7-4950 and other similar processors. So the bottom line is that even if it is hitting 100 degrees slamming the system with everything I have, the fact that it isn't going above that means that...get ready for it...everything is working exactly as intended.
Shocking, I know.
If someone really wants to know what's going on, they should run this stuff under Boot Camp with Intel's Turbo Boost monitor. I expect it will show exactly what it's supposed to show. A separate question is whether better architecture (e.g., better thermal paste and superior application of it) would dissipate heat better so as to permit more Turbo Boosting. That, too, is a testable hypothesis, although not one that I'm personally willing to test.
The fact is no laptop should be getting hotter than 90C. Can the CPU handle it? Yes. Should the CPU have to handle it? No.
100 degrees is problematic and will increase wear on the system. Heat is not good for electronics period. 100 degrees is not normal and not good.
And people seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that if its not shutting off due to heat then its fine and working as intended. The fact is that pretty much no modern laptop shuts off from heat anymore. It just downclocks. If the CPU is running below base frequency under sustained heavy loads then there is a problem; the CPU is not hitting its intended frequencies and thus is not working as intended. Running at base frequency is okay but not ideal. A perfectly working CPU will run at max boost.
I had a dell that would down clock to 1.2 ghz when playing Skyrim (from base 2.0 ghz and boost 2.6 ghz). Did the dell shut off? No. Was it working properly? No. Was there a problem with it? Yes.
Is no one concerned that Apple is selling you an expensive CPU upgrade and then potentially cripples that CPU by not supplying the thermal headroom? Or the appropriate power envelope (85 W for the system isn't enough)?
I always thought it meant "pro" in the sense like "amateur versus professional". Not that it's a business laptop, but that it's their high end line. It's pro.
Since you didn't read the previous discussion either, I'll recap:
• Different programs report different values for the temperature(s), and it's not entirely clear which are "correct" and which are "incorrect."
• iStat Pro and others reported values at 100% CPU utilization around 46 degrees Celsius. However, my suspicion is that some of those lower values are around the heat sink.
• The utility used by the OP shows values closer to 100 degrees Celsius. I poked around, and that's the on-core reported value.
• Here's the kicker with everything you said: having an on-core temperature of 100 degrees is NOT the same as having a "laptop" temperature of 100 degrees. If the internal temperature is in the 40s or 50s (which it is, even with the CPU and GPU together), then we don't have a problem. You're talking about 100 degrees as if it's some system-wide temperature. It isn't. Not even close. And again, I can only get 100 degree on-core readings while pushing the CPU to 100% utilization across all cores and with HyperThreading (i.e., 8 processes).
• We don't know if, at maximum load, the CPU is running below base frequency. It's a good bet that Turbo Boost isn't kicking in. Again, this is something that someone running Boot Camp would have to test.
• The last point is a theoretical/hypothetical one. Let's say the laptop were magically doing a better job of cooling (more on that in a minute). In that hypothetical world, would the CPU still be hitting 100 degrees? (It's distinctly possible.) Would it be Turbo Boosting, and if so, how much? There's no way for us to answer these questions. Ostensibly, if there's a fantastic cooling PC laptop out there, we could run an experiment comparing the same 100% utilization on the Mac and the PC and see...but again, that's something someone else would have to do.
TL/DR: I see no problem whatsoever. Could cooling be improved with some Arctic Silver and non glopping it on as if more is better? Absolutely. Does that poor conductivity probably shrink the life of some Apple laptops? I'm sure. Is it really a "problem" per se? There's no compelling evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is. There's just a bunch of speculation and supposition.