Send the i9 version to me, and I PROMISE not to complain about throttling on the inter webs. You can then buy the cheaper model and we both win.
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.
YouTuber Claims 15-Inch MacBook Pro With Upgraded Core i9 Chip is Severely Throttled Due to Thermal Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I rarely run into a profession where you only have one tool in your toolbox.god forbid there are people that want one machine that has power and is mobile and don't care to have 5 machines....
amirite?
[doublepost=1532111682][/doublepost]
Well, if Intel had released it when it was scheduled -- it would already be a moot point.
But for Intel it is not about the Chicken and the Egg....
More like Chicken and the Egg, Egg, Egg, Egg, Egg...
so what? Apple is not advertising these machines as something needing multiples to have.
Not everyone can afford 5 computer setup
Stop defending apple. This is a ****** move by them
Interesting note on power from geekbench
https://twitter.com/jfpoole/status/1020380209902571520?s=21
https://twitter.com/jfpoole/status/1020380209902571520?s=21
I am not, I am in a waiting period...
If the current MacBook 15" does not suit your needs now, then nothing has in the past... which means that if you are actually using Macs and you NEED that power that is not quite there... you must have at least a second computer... so NOTHING has changed.
What am I waiting for... Intel... so if I can decide whether my next "desktop/server" is Intel or AMD...
I am also waiting on Apple... waiting for the response... to this machine, the Mac Pro, and the Mac Mini... so I can decide what the likely next Mac I will get...
Each of the items on my waiting list will depend on what mix of computers I get to serve my professional needs.
[doublepost=1532114258][/doublepost]
Yes, it is interesting... if it is slamming as high as 80 watts (that is mid-range desktop) then dropping off ... it is ***king nuts... There are only 87 watts of power for every single component... and you gotta know the chipset, RAM and especially the dGPU has got to take that way-way-way over the power supply if that is true...
They get into the peak watts within that tweet.
I’m curious to know if it is something that Apple can tweak via an update.
Yes, there are many things that Apple can tweak... The 'turbo' can be moderated or disabled by the computer manufacturer... in fact, disabling the 'turbo' can make the CPU run cooler and better performance but at the cost of some heightened responsiveness.
If it already runs 40 to 50 watts while under load (and I doubt compiling would even put the CPU at 100% and flatlined at that usage), there is not much room for much 'turbo' boost anyways (except in a very short spike - which should be moderated if the process is not a very short task) IMHO.
Last edited:
for me personally, i would hope they don’t disable turbo.. that spec on the i9 is the one i’m most hyped on.
i use CAD software.. over 95% of all CAD processes are happening on a single core.. and generally, a user is wanting short bursts of very high speeds.. (whether they know it or not
)so for CAD/3D modeling, this 4.8GHz turbo is looking real sweet on paper.
——
most of my work is along those lines.. but i also render many of the models in which the 6core spec starts looking real exciting.
idk, this i9 chip in a laptop looks awesome for a CAD/render workflow..
my only hope is Apple can optimize it a little better within the confines of the current body.
but they should focus on both aspects of the potential (drag racing speed & multicore)
—
anyway, i guess my point is that i really hope Apple doesn’t drop the turbo speeds in these chips.. that is more beneficial to me (and really, most other users in general) than super fast multicore capability
Ah, a dreamer...
Best thing here is to switch your order to the i7 you'll be much better off. Its six core's too! All you're giving up is the throttling ;-}
[doublepost=1532117192][/doublepost]
The turbo is not the issue here. Turning it off won't change the fact the system is throttling below its base frequency.
Apple could alter the fan's a bit to spin up sooner but that still won't solve it. Think of it this way your on a treadmill and someone speeds it up on you but you manage to stay with it then the raise the speed again, again you are still running and running hard now how long do you think you can keep this up there's a point you can't and you fall.
Thermal loading is very similar here we can make sure the temp is at the lowest point so as the temp rises we have some banked cooling. But there will be a time when that banked cooling is used up. So now we are over heating thats the problem. The systems thinness is preventing the needed cooling system to be installed as this chip runs hot.
for me personally, i would hope they don’t disable turbo.. that spec on the i9 is the one i’m most hyped on.
i use CAD software.. over 95% of all CAD processes are happening on a single core.. and generally, a user is wanting short bursts of very high speeds.. (whether they know it or not
so for CAD/3D modeling, this 4.8GHz turbo is looking real sweet on paper.
——
most of my work is along those lines.. but i also render many of the models in which the 6core spec starts looking real exciting.
idk, this i9 chip in a laptop looks awesome for a CAD/render workflow..
my only hope is Apple can optimize it a little better within the confines of the current body.
but they should focus on both aspects of the potential (drag racing speed & multicore)
—
anyway, i guess my point is that i really hope Apple doesn’t drop the turbo speeds in these chips.. that is more beneficial to me (and really, most other users in general) than super fast multicore capability
I hate to break it to you but the Intel spec of 4.8GHz turbo is likely only on paper - not in real usage - not for use if you are also making use of the dGPU (or for that matter the eGPU). There would be no power for the dGPU. I believe the dGPU is rated at 65 watts TDP maximum. (that does not include the chipset, the memory, the SSD etc.). And the tweet was that he was compiling - which is definitely not eGPU or dGPU intensive.
Intel's TDP being garbage was one of my points but people don't want to admit Intel has a part in this.
Apple is certainly aware of that and had the ultimate responsibility
yeah, i don’t think it’s going to hit 4.8 with any consistency.
but they shouldn’t sacrifice turbo speeds for less throttled multicore (imo)
idk... if they could get this chip to function as ,say, 6core 2.7 GHz with 4.5 turbo.. well that’s still an awesome chip for CAD/rendering and something i’d be pleased with.
and really, for all i know, that is how the i9 MBP would function with my software
(Rhino & Grasshopper mainly then Fusion for CAM/rendering)
i just want to see someone using these programs with the i9 MBP.. i mean, i might be wishing something from Apple that’s already available today
Good grief.. I don't even know why I bother to post here. I would assume that many people would be interested in the why of it.. aside from the surface analysis of "Apple screwed up".
Yes of course Apple is responsible, but it looks like we also have a CPU that's not behaving as Intel specs it. We may ultimately get a firmware update that doesn't provide power outside of a smaller envelope that's within spec, even if the processor asks for it.
Maybe the i9 would be fine in a desktop -- or a transportable... but I am beginning to doubt it really is great for a laptop...
You seem to be missing my point. I was an engineer. I designed microprocessors. I know that the customers who buy those don’t rely entirely on the published TDP number. They test the processors and have entire teams responsible for designing and verifying thermal solutions based on the actual behavior of the chip.
Apple decided to sell a system with this chip that is actually slower, in many cases, than the systems it replaces. They did so knowing full well EXACTLY how the intel chip behaves.
Congratulations.. I have multiple engineering degrees myself.. they are quite handy to have, especially when measuring body parts on forums.
I understand the underlying processes, and I also understand that Apple had the opportunity to decide that this SKU wasn't fit for release. Meanwhile, the issues relating to WHY it's problematic are interesting to me.
I was trying to make this point the other day. Sure, you could say the spec sheet is misleading or not useful but it's not like Apple only had a spec sheet until the day of release and then were surprised. They tested these things, decided that they were good enough and released it. In the i9 form at least, they are not good enough.
Note to apple, cmaier says you should go back to not listing to your customers -- and they are stupid for asking you to put this chip in their computers
Note to apple, cmaier says you should go back to not listing to your customers -- and they are stupid for asking you to put this chip in their computers
What a ******** straw man statement.
What I said is that if apple decided it wanted to use the chip, it’s responsible for designing a machine with a proper thermal solution to use it.
There’s a reason you don’t stick a turbocharged V8 in a Smart car.
You are right, they should just put it in a Mac Mini or desktop computer... or put another way, don't put a truck into a car's body