I this thread is a perfect example of why I’m glad the masses don’t care what spec-heads think. This MBP looks fantastic, performs even better than what Apple advertises, and yet some people here just have to troll their ignorant, uneducated, possibly even iHating nonsense.
Yes this was my point in my post. Most consumers going in to buy a laptop like the MacBook Pro don't really care about the specs. Its only the nerds who want bragging rights that really care about speed in the end.
Actually this is nonsense. The whole point of the 15” MBP is high performance for professional use.
Personally I'm more concerned about the keyboard and issues with Apples service practices.
Maybe this is your concern, but that doesn't mean you're the gold standard of what people want. You can't honestly tell me people go into a store that sells Apple products in mass and ask if it beats this computer or that computer. Honestly, if speed is your main concern then get a desktop which will have higher and better sustained CPU usage.
Honestly, I don't think it matters what Apple releases...you're not going to buy it anyways. All you're going to do is criticize it.
My dog, the people complaining about “malicious anti-Apple rants” in here... You guys attacked well before, and more often than, anyone who constructively criticized Apple’s machines in here. Chill the frell out.
There is no “constructive criticism” of Apple machines in tech blog comment sections. Only anonymous posers who present themselves as experts. And we’re supposed to just accept their opinions as informed critics. Bullshit. As another commenter said earlier, people buy Apple products whether the self-styled nerds approve or not. Even better, those critics are completely irrelevant to the market they claim to speak for. Why I am so adamant about tasking the comment sections? Because I spent a 34 year career in a technical job with AT&T and had to listen to all the experts in tech support spout their credentials and regale me with their tech prowess only to find out they couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with directions written on the heel.
You know, it's just time to state it in plain English with no BS, the current generation MBP's just smoke ass. I am a few generations behind for financial reasons and that is the only reason.
That’s a surprisingly poor write-up for AI. For one, the claim of “no thermal throttling issues whatsoever” is unsupported, save for one machine running one benchmark.
Six machines, and multiple benchmarks. We've just presented the one here. There are also other accounts of the same thing from other venues, using their own testing methodologies, and you'll find that they're all substantively the same.
You agree then that the claim in the article and video is not supported by the data in the article or video.
I also can't trust reviews. Last year, the i9 MBP garnered a lot of attention for its throttling, and it seems every tech site was satisfied with subsequent patches Apple provided. But in my work, I often encounter large memory problems where both 2018 releases (560X and V20) of the i9 MBP constrain the processor to well below its advertised base clock speed, despite the package power consumption being in the low teens of watts. (The TDP is 45 watts.) Desktop Macs do not exhibit this throttling. Apple's response is simply that the MBP is a different beast--no explanation or justification provided. For the newly updated i9 MBP, Apple now advertises "desktop" performance, but only for graphics, not CPU-intensive computing. In the coming weeks, I may trial the latest MBP to find out if anything has changed for large memory, CPU-intensive workloads.
That’s a surprisingly poor write-up for AI. For one, the claim of “no thermal throttling issues whatsoever” is unsupported, save for one machine running one benchmark.
Six machines, and multiple benchmarks. We've just presented the one here. There are also other accounts of the same thing from other venues, using their own testing methodologies, and you'll find that they're all substantively the same.
You agree then that the claim in the article and video is not supported by the data in the article or video.
I also can't trust reviews. Last year, the i9 MBP garnered a lot of attention for its throttling, and it seems every tech site was satisfied with subsequent patches Apple provided. But in my work, I often encounter large memory problems where both 2018 releases (560X and V20) of the i9 MBP constrain the processor to well below its advertised base clock speed, despite the package power consumption being in the low teens of watts. (The TDP is 45 watts.) Desktop Macs do not exhibit this throttling. Apple's response is simply that the MBP is a different beast--no explanation or justification provided. For the newly updated i9 MBP, Apple now advertises "desktop" performance, but only for graphics, not CPU-intensive computing. In the coming weeks, I may trial the latest MBP to find out if anything has changed for large memory, CPU-intensive workloads.
I have no idea where you get this part that I've bolded. The claim in the article and video are in fact supported by the data.
I also have zero idea what your workflow is. What are you doing, getting these memory problems?
I'm really glad you did these tests, thank you! However Apple has made me gun shy about buying one; releasing the Vega series GPUs in November of last year, 3 months after release the supposed 2018 models, makes me wonder if I should wait to see if they do the same this year.
This is how it used to be -- relatively rapid iteration with spec-bumps.
A machine you buy now, or bought six months ago, is not suddenly going to light on fire because there is new gear. There will always be something new coming
I get that, but 3 months was a really narrow window for a very significant spec bump in my opinion.
Not as bad as I’d thought, though not an achievement, but I can’t expect more when that thing draws 83 watts of power.
I’m wondering how will they redesign the MacBook Pro. Obviously TDP doesn’t equal to power consumption nor the amount of heat, is a pile of marketing for sure, so Apple could build a processor that draws more than 60 watts, yet still cooler than Intel’s i9, at least I hope so. AMD just announced their $500 desktop processor at 12 cores, so the fight of higher core counts will get more intense, and you know what that means...I think it’s okay now to make it thicker when necessary, like what they’ve done to iPhones.
Although Intel Corp. had problems delivering 10nm processors, no one blamed Intel Corp. Apple is the company that had to take the heat of having a MacBook Pro that thermal-throttled. Just as Intel Corp. screwed up with their modem chip-set, it was Apple that had to take the blame for slower modem speeds in the iPhones. It's just easier for people to blame Apple for everything that goes wrong. Maybe that's the way it should be, but I think it may be a wee bit unfair.
If a company designs a product around a component that was promised and that component company doesn't deliver, then it's the product maker that's immediately blamed if something goes wrong with said product. I never heard one tech-head product tester blame Intel Corp. for a MacBook Pro that thermal-throttled. It was always Apple's fault and Apple's fault alone. It was always Apple that didn't do their job properly and how the MacBook Pro was just a poorly designed notebook computer that didn't have decent enough cooling for such high-powered processors. Apple may have gotten stuck with 14nm processors instead of getting their 10nm processors but who cares. It's always easier just to blame Apple because that's the company that delivers the clicks.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I felt when I talked to others. I wouldn’t say Apple is complete innocent in this situation, but most gives excuse to Intel as they think “performance is the opposite of thickness”, so Intel did nothing wrong despite they’ve failed in this regard.
Comments
Honestly, I don't think it matters what Apple releases...you're not going to buy it anyways. All you're going to do is criticize it.
I also can't trust reviews. Last year, the i9 MBP garnered a lot of attention for its throttling, and it seems every tech site was satisfied with subsequent patches Apple provided. But in my work, I often encounter large memory problems where both 2018 releases (560X and V20) of the i9 MBP constrain the processor to well below its advertised base clock speed, despite the package power consumption being in the low teens of watts. (The TDP is 45 watts.) Desktop Macs do not exhibit this throttling. Apple's response is simply that the MBP is a different beast--no explanation or justification provided. For the newly updated i9 MBP, Apple now advertises "desktop" performance, but only for graphics, not CPU-intensive computing. In the coming weeks, I may trial the latest MBP to find out if anything has changed for large memory, CPU-intensive workloads.
I also have zero idea what your workflow is. What are you doing, getting these memory problems?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13124/the-amd-threadripper-2990wx-and-2950x-review/12
This is awkward.
I’m wondering how will they redesign the MacBook Pro. Obviously TDP doesn’t equal to power consumption nor the amount of heat, is a pile of marketing for sure, so Apple could build a processor that draws more than 60 watts, yet still cooler than Intel’s i9, at least I hope so.
AMD just announced their $500 desktop processor at 12 cores, so the fight of higher core counts will get more intense, and you know what that means...I think it’s okay now to make it thicker when necessary, like what they’ve done to iPhones.