No one would notice that minus 0.3 GHz in real life usage. The stock throttles more than that 0.3 GHz by the way...
“the clock speed to drop from 3.9GHz to about 3.6GHz for a second or two. This allowed the CPU to drop below 92 degrees, and the clock speed to rise back to the maximum 3.9GHz”
The stock Xeon W-2145 is supposed to turbo to 4.5 GHz and will not throttle. Most desktop cooling solutions can likely sustain even higher frequencies without throttling.
Apple's solution is downclocked and still throttles.
Turbo is for single core, dude...
So your (mis)understanding "how may it throttle at 3.9 while it can Turbo at 4.5" doesn't make sense, you compare apples to oranges.
The W-2145 has a boost speed of 4.5 GHz, the W-2140B has a boost speed of 4.2 GHz. <-- The downclock.
The W-2140B is seen throttling down to 3.6 GHz at sustained load. <-- The throttling.
Stop flooding the forum with meaningless numbers. You said “turbo must be sustained” above and that’s enough. You have transcended even Intel and I wish you a good Turbo life. I’m done with your posts.
Calm down, dude. VRing is articulating very useful points that benefit anyone in this forum trying to decide which model to buy. I for one would have purchased the base model CPU if:
Apple hadn't downclocked it from 4.5 to "4.2"
AppleInsider didn't report that the "4.2" is actually more like 3.9
AppleInsider didn't report that the fans would shut off to prevent the overheating problem (in an alumi-knee-um George Forman grill)
Most of us could anticipate all three issues from past Apple performance/decisions. iMac's and MacBook Pro's will never see the Intel turbo boost speeds because of thermal issues.
Therefore, by crippling/throttline the single core performance of the coolest running CPU from 4.5 to "4.2" (3.9), Apple has created an incentive for me to spend a very round $800 on the more expensive 10-core machine. That said, I would like to see some real world tests on on the 10-core because my money on is on that sucker choking at 3.9 too.
The unbiased analysis of Apple is this: Apple will always use marketing to defend their design decisions that cripple performance. As critical thinkers, it's on us to see through their BS. There are a bunch of us that prefer to use Mac OS (and iOS) but are sick of getting crippled, throttled, and dongled options.
No one would notice that minus 0.3 GHz in real life usage. The stock throttles more than that 0.3 GHz by the way...
“the clock speed to drop from 3.9GHz to about 3.6GHz for a second or two. This allowed the CPU to drop below 92 degrees, and the clock speed to rise back to the maximum 3.9GHz”
The stock Xeon W-2145 is supposed to turbo to 4.5 GHz and will not throttle. Most desktop cooling solutions can likely sustain even higher frequencies without throttling.
Apple's solution is downclocked and still throttles.
Turbo is for single core, dude...
So your (mis)understanding "how may it throttle at 3.9 while it can Turbo at 4.5" doesn't make sense, you compare apples to oranges.
The W-2145 has a boost speed of 4.5 GHz, the W-2140B has a boost speed of 4.2 GHz. <-- The downclock.
The W-2140B is seen throttling down to 3.6 GHz at sustained load. <-- The throttling.
Stop flooding the forum with meaningless numbers. You said “turbo must be sustained” above and that’s enough. You have transcended even Intel and I wish you a good Turbo life. I’m done with your posts.
Calm down, dude. VRing is articulating very useful points that benefit anyone in this forum trying to decide which model to buy. I for one would have purchased the base model CPU if:
Apple hadn't downclocked it from 4.5 to "4.2"
AppleInsider didn't report that the "4.2" is actually more like 3.9
AppleInsider didn't report that the fans would shut off to prevent the overheating problem (in an alumi-knee-um George Forman grill)
Most of us could anticipate all three issues from past Apple performance/decisions. iMac's and MacBook Pro's will never see the Intel turbo boost speeds because of thermal issues.
Therefore, by crippling/throttline the single core performance of the coolest running CPU from 4.5 to "4.2" (3.9), Apple has created an incentive for me to spend a very round $800 on the more expensive 10-core machine. That said, I would like to see some real world tests on on the 10-core because my money on is on that sucker choking at 3.9 too.
The unbiased analysis of Apple is this: Apple will always use marketing to defend their design decisions that cripple performance. As critical thinkers, it's on us to see through their BS. There are a bunch of us that prefer to use Mac OS (and iOS) but are sick of getting crippled, throttled, and dongled options.
I am calm enough not to react to your repetitive post already answered in post #44. You invent a fictitious processor and claim that Apple downclocks it. Good luck with that...
Apple isn’t even using a W-2145, let alone downclocking one.
The W-2140B is essentially a downclocked version of the W-2145. The same way the W-2150B is a downclocked W-2155.
These are straight up weaker versions of their regular counterparts.
That said, I’m confused about the comments re: thermal throttling. From the article:
In the multi-core benchmark, the 8 cores ran at 3.9 gigahertz, which seems to be the top CPU frequency when maxing out all CPU cores.
and, during 10 consecutive multi core tests:
After the second test, each additional run would cause the iMac Pro to thermal throttle when the CPU reached roughly 94 degrees celsius, which caused the clock speed to drop from 3.9GHz to about 3.6GHz for a second or two. This allowed the CPU to drop below 92 degrees, and the clock speed to rise back to the maximum 3.9GHz.
The base frequency of this processor is only 3.2GHz. So multicore performance seems well beyond spec.
That doesn’t explain the single core at 3.9 but if it can do 3.6 to 3.9 with all cores, 4.2 with single core would seem to be attainable wrt thermals. There may be some further optimizations possible, trading off fan speed (which was described as inaudible and seemingly near idle) with maximum clockspeed under various load conditions.
Looks very promising so far.
Well beyond spec? What are you talking about. Turbo should be sustained. None of this looks promising.
Even the overall performance is disappointing. A 1950X scores 3100 in Cinebench R15, meanwhile, the W-2140B scored 1680.
1) A W-2145 is a 3.7/4.5 part, the W-2140B is a 3.2/4.2 part. Are you saying Apple should also offer the faster, more expensive chip? Fine, but that would be a $5,200 or $5,300 machine, not $5,000. You don’t get something for nothing. Apple is unlikely to offer 2 different speeds of 8-core though, so don’t hold your breath.
With your logic, you might just as well say Apple should only offer the 18-core at $7,400.
2) The part is spec’ed at 3.2GHz base frequency. In 2 different multicore tests, it benched at either 3.6-3.9GHz or a solid 3.9GHz.
A 3.2GHz part running at 3.9GHz with all cores at 100% is promising. The fan seemed not to be running. As I said, with an optimization of fan speed, 4.2GHz on one core would seem to be within the thermal capacity, since it’s easily beating its 3.2GHz base speed—upon which TDP is defined.
3) Mac workstations are typically purchased by those who want to use MacOS, so your comparison of this 8-core machine to a 16-core machine, which can’t run MacOS, isn’t particularly relevant. TCO isn’t maximized by simply buying the cheapest hardware available.
1) You're the one that's not understanding. The W-2145 is the standard model that will be used in every other Xeon W workstation. Apple's version is just a downclocked version of that chip. This has nothing to do with cost, which, by the way, likely costs more for Apple as they're not using the off the shelf variant. Unless of course they're just using the portion of the yields that couldn't become a full W-2145.
2) Nothing about that is well beyond spec. Sustaining speeds above the base clock should be expected for a desktop with a decent cooling + a PSU that draws power directly from the wall.
3) The point is that the performance as a workstation is underwhelming. Just because a macOS user has no other options is simply unfortunate.
1) I don’t think you understand Intel’s pricing model.
2) I don’t think you understand base clock and turbo boost.
No one would notice that minus 0.3 GHz in real life usage. The stock throttles more than that 0.3 GHz by the way...
“the clock speed to drop from 3.9GHz to about 3.6GHz for a second or two. This allowed the CPU to drop below 92 degrees, and the clock speed to rise back to the maximum 3.9GHz”
The stock Xeon W-2145 is supposed to turbo to 4.5 GHz and will not throttle. Most desktop cooling solutions can likely sustain even higher frequencies without throttling.
Apple's solution is downclocked and still throttles.
Turbo is for single core, dude...
So your (mis)understanding "how may it throttle at 3.9 while it can Turbo at 4.5" doesn't make sense, you compare apples to oranges.
The W-2145 has a boost speed of 4.5 GHz, the W-2140B has a boost speed of 4.2 GHz. <-- The downclock.
The W-2140B is seen throttling down to 3.6 GHz at sustained load. <-- The throttling.
Stop flooding the forum with meaningless numbers. You said “turbo must be sustained” above and that’s enough. You have transcended even Intel and I wish you a good Turbo life. I’m done with your posts.
Calm down, dude. VRing is articulating very useful points that benefit anyone in this forum trying to decide which model to buy. I for one would have purchased the base model CPU if:
Apple hadn't downclocked it from 4.5 to "4.2"
AppleInsider didn't report that the "4.2" is actually more like 3.9
AppleInsider didn't report that the fans would shut off to prevent the overheating problem (in an alumi-knee-um George Forman grill)
Most of us could anticipate all three issues from past Apple performance/decisions. iMac's and MacBook Pro's will never see the Intel turbo boost speeds because of thermal issues.
Therefore, by crippling/throttline the single core performance of the coolest running CPU from 4.5 to "4.2" (3.9), Apple has created an incentive for me to spend a very round $800 on the more expensive 10-core machine. That said, I would like to see some real world tests on on the 10-core because my money on is on that sucker choking at 3.9 too.
The unbiased analysis of Apple is this: Apple will always use marketing to defend their design decisions that cripple performance. As critical thinkers, it's on us to see through their BS. There are a bunch of us that prefer to use Mac OS (and iOS) but are sick of getting crippled, throttled, and dongled options.
I am calm enough not to react to your repetitive post already answered in post #44. You invent a fictitious processor and claim that Apple downclocks it. Good luck with that...
Screenshot of Intel Xeon processor family is attached. As you can see, Apple has not only down-clocked the turbo frequency of the 8-core from 4.5 to 4.2, and the base frequency from 3.7 to 3.3. Also note the spec's of the 10, 14 and 18-core processors.
Now, to be fair, I don't think any pro user really expected the iMac Pro (intended to bridge the 2012/2013 Mac Pro to the 2019 Mac Pro) would not have thermal issues, so this doesn't come as a big surprise.
So, as Apple users (I'll be buying the 10-core), we're just frustrated that the products are overpriced and overhyped (marketing 4.5 but actually 3.9 in real life) when we're paying top dollar. It doesn't feel great as a freelance 3D artist to plunk down over 8k for something that's double down-clocked when they're supposedly throwing us a bone until they ship the Mac Pro.
We're not mad; we're disappointed. OK, and a little mad about the money. But, honestly, Vring and I are on the same team as you. It's us vs. them, and they have a recent history of not listening to us, and then rationalizing their decisions with a bunch of malarkey. "It took courage to kill the headphone jack". "No, you wanted to sell more AirPods." And the list goes on and on...
Comments
- Apple hadn't downclocked it from 4.5 to "4.2"
- AppleInsider didn't report that the "4.2" is actually more like 3.9
- AppleInsider didn't report that the fans would shut off to prevent the overheating problem (in an alumi-knee-um George Forman grill)
Most of us could anticipate all three issues from past Apple performance/decisions. iMac's and MacBook Pro's will never see the Intel turbo boost speeds because of thermal issues.Therefore, by crippling/throttline the single core performance of the coolest running CPU from 4.5 to "4.2" (3.9), Apple has created an incentive for me to spend a very round $800 on the more expensive 10-core machine. That said, I would like to see some real world tests on on the 10-core because my money on is on that sucker choking at 3.9 too.
The unbiased analysis of Apple is this: Apple will always use marketing to defend their design decisions that cripple performance. As critical thinkers, it's on us to see through their BS. There are a bunch of us that prefer to use Mac OS (and iOS) but are sick of getting crippled, throttled, and dongled options.
2) I don’t think you understand base clock and turbo boost.
3) I don’t think you understand TCO.
Screenshot of Intel Xeon processor family is attached. As you can see, Apple has not only down-clocked the turbo frequency of the 8-core from 4.5 to 4.2, and the base frequency from 3.7 to 3.3. Also note the spec's of the 10, 14 and 18-core processors.
Now, to be fair, I don't think any pro user really expected the iMac Pro (intended to bridge the 2012/2013 Mac Pro to the 2019 Mac Pro) would not have thermal issues, so this doesn't come as a big surprise.
So, as Apple users (I'll be buying the 10-core), we're just frustrated that the products are overpriced and overhyped (marketing 4.5 but actually 3.9 in real life) when we're paying top dollar. It doesn't feel great as a freelance 3D artist to plunk down over 8k for something that's double down-clocked when they're supposedly throwing us a bone until they ship the Mac Pro.
We're not mad; we're disappointed. OK, and a little mad about the money. But, honestly, Vring and I are on the same team as you. It's us vs. them, and they have a recent history of not listening to us, and then rationalizing their decisions with a bunch of malarkey. "It took courage to kill the headphone jack". "No, you wanted to sell more AirPods." And the list goes on and on...