Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by unglued, Dec 4, 2018.
Is the i7 really better than the i9 because the i9 overheats and loses performance?
The advantage of i9 is higher single core turbo boost and more cache. It’s a situational upgrade that is not justified for most users. The i7 and the i9 perform similar in multi-core be charms such as Cinebench because Intel set the multi-core boost limit very high - so they reach similar clocks under those circumstances. Simply put, it’s not that i9 loses performance, but that the i7 performance is not constrained like it was in earlier CPU generations. Still, in burst workflows the i9 has an edge. I got the i9 because my work is dominated by such burst workflows and I’m saving valuable seconds with it. But yes, it’s hard to justify the 300 premium.
Thank you for explaining, it makes more sense now.
The current cooling solution implmented in the macbook chassis is not adequate to cool the i9. It will always involve heavy thermal throttling, succumbing to speeds comparable to the entry level i7 CPU. Therefore there is no reason at all to pay for the i9, especially having sustained CPU/GPU heavy workloads you will never get the power of the i9 utilized.
As long as the thermal envelope is so thin, those high clocked intel cpus make no sense at all. the i9 is basically a souped up i7, with razer thin margins regarding maximum power consumption.
Max Yuryev did reliable testing on this, you can compare your workloads accordingly:
Please stop spreading this nonsense. The i9 is rated to run at 2.9Ghz in multi-core sustained operation. It consistently runs at 3.3Ghz or higher — its runs ABOVe the spec and the cooling system is adequate. It doesn't throttle and it doesn't "sucumb to speeds of the i7". Its the i7 that runs almost 1Ghz above its spec, since Intel didn't set a limiter like it did with older CPUs. The i9 runs just fine. Its the i7 that runs way better that advertised.
And yes, a gaming laptop with a desktop-class cooling solution will allow the CPU to boost even more, up to the point where the i7 will finally hit a built-in limiter and the i9 can still going. Operation these CPUs at 80+ watts is not normal usage. At that point you are running them as desktop CPUs.
Indeed, this nonsense has gone on long enough. The thermal design and unlocked CPU performance means that all the 2018 MBPs run well-above the published specifications. In some cases this has closed the gap between processor variants but only in a good way.
If you unlock a CPU and set it to run all the way to the thermal limit then that is exactly what you get!
I worry that Apple will eventually lock-down future CPUs to their published clock limits just to stop the great unwashed moaning about something they don't understand but are happy to spout.
Its Intel's game, not Apple's. My suspicion is that these new CPUs have much higher limits simply because if the limits were lower, they would barely be faster than Kaby Lake... Intel's tech is stagnating and they have to sell stuff. Its all marketing.
But the CPU tanks below rated base speed when GPU is also tasked, doesnt it?
--- Post Merged, Dec 5, 2018 ---
They advertise i9 at 4.8ghz turbo boost - something that never happened
--- Post Merged, Dec 5, 2018 ---
Only if you go out of your way to push both the CPU and the GPU very hard. Not something that would happen normally. Most laptops of that size and weight category have shared cooling system between the CPU and GPU, so throttling is a normal occurrence under extreme circumstances. Other laptops like Dell XPS and Razer Blade show throttling under stress test as well.
Ah, that's a funny one. The i9 is actually a 4.6ghz CPU. The extra 200Mhz is what Intel calls "thermal velocity boost" which only applies under very restricted circumstances (the CPU has to be under 50C) and can be only maintained for a very short duration. Its a boost on the boost, and if you ask me, it comes dangerously close to indecent marketing practices. It is possible that its activating on the MBP, we just can't really know, since the boost will be so short-lived (few milliseconds at most) that you simply won't see it in a normal monitoring tool.
can’t argue with that!
my old 560x/i9 tanked the cpu when scrolling in macrumors tho - and diagnostic didnt show a thing. except service guy said that it runs “somewhat hot”. but it was his first i9 under service... that’s what bothers me a little. well not anymore really, just odd.
They claim "up to" 4.8GHz.
Isn't all the testing everyone's doing a distance away from real world use? I mean for me I can only compare my old and new MBP performance and behavior with all the monitors, HDD's, docks, device charging, etc. hanging off my MBP sucking more power and generating heat across the entire internals.
Pretty much this and the exact reason I went for the i7. I don't do anything requires max sustained processing power anyway.
Same here I went with the i7 Vega20 16GB. I was evening thinking if doubling the RAM to 32GB would generate more power thus more heat so I tried to keep everything as minimum as possible for my use case.
Thats often the case, yes, and a big issue with all these benchmarks. Thats why I always try to test the machines on practical workflows.
So I’m mostly doing my graphic design work in Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, XD, etc..I just had a weak moment and ordered the i9, 32gb, vega 20 a week ago. I want it to last as long as my previous late 2013 specced out MBP. I think I went too far after reading all the posts. Any Adobe users around here experiencing positive results or is this beast just overcooking while connected to an external monitor (LG widescreen) and doing print & web design work? Should receive mine by tomorrow
I have to add that I’m having issues with my current MBP working on complex Illustrator projects..Beachball galore
I am not a digital artist but from what I hear, Adobe software tends to be rather "generous" with RAM. If you are working with complex projects, 32GB might be a smart choice.
Apple does get a vote when it comes to CPU settings and they have quite a history of unlocking more from the CPU than Intel would set at a consumer level (ignoring the unlocked extreme CPUs). When people then observe the frequency boost across all cores before holding the number against the 'up to' single core boost figure the level of confusion only increases.
I share your scepticism of Intel and they really are a second-rate company these days.
My colleague ordered one and sees a significant difference but as stated above, mostly because of the RAM. No beach balls yet. Even if it’s overkill for now, it will future proof you for a couple of years.
Thanks for the confirmation about my 32GB choice. The i9 and its termal issues is more the chosen option that I am doubtful about. We will see and I’ll deffo report back when having used the MBP for a few days