It may be the fastest laptop Apple has ever made, but it still has a ridiculously shallow keyboard. Such a shame.
I know the keyboard is divisive, some hate it, some like it. Maybe people that basically hammer their keyboards are the ones that more issues with it (other than reliability issue which I consider separate). For me, the thin keyboards -- I am more efficient... I know when I hit a key it will register (as opposed to an off-angle press that might not push hard enough because off angle offers more resistance)... so with very little effort, I can actually type faster. My goto desk keyboard is the magic keyboard... yes, I have tried all sorts of keyboards but I came back to this one as my goto keyboard. I certainly would not have to go back to the Remington (manual) typewriter keyboard... I think my fingers would be too out of shape
Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much. What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop. So what i9 is closest to your vision?
You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference. The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation). The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part. Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc. A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane. The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).
Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.
Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state. If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
So that it is clearly said, the Core i9 in 2018 MBP15 is running exactly as Intel advertises. It runs in perpetuity at the base clock of 2.9 GHz at 45 Watts for Intel’s given TDP benchmark load, with the Intel specified exceptions of not using the AVX unit and probably not maxing out the CPU+GPU at the same time. It will have 1 core turbo to 4.8 GHz until thermal capacitance runs out. It will have sets of cores turbo to lower frequencies until thermal capacitance runs out.
If the cooling system can maintain 60, 80, 100 W of cooling, those turbo frequencies will last longer. But everyone knows that Apple prioritizes portability and quietness. It doesn’t offer a gaming laptop or a workstation laptop. It’s offering a laptop that is as quiet as possible, as portable as possible, with as much performance as possible in that given package. The market decides on their success.
Are we getting a bit too focussed on the sustained performance of encodes? I’m no videographer but isn’t the ability to handle short performance bursts during editing more relevant?
In my line of work, it’s all about single core performance, so yeah, I’d like to see a thorough evaluation of the performance characteristics between the base, middle and high end CPU options. I’m sure everyone wants to see a thorough evaluation of the multi-core performance of these systems on a per application basis too, in both burst and sustained loads.
But the comments above are trying to clarify the notion that the Core i9 is not performing as it should or the best. It’s performing exactly as advertised by Intel.
Comments
But the comments above are trying to clarify the notion that the Core i9 is not performing as it should or the best. It’s performing exactly as advertised by Intel.