Tested: Thermal throttling in base model mid-2019 13-inch MacBook Pro

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,278member
    DuhSesame said:
    MplsP said:
    DuhSesame said:
    MplsP said:
    Interesting article. One thing I noticed when looking at the new 13" MBPs was how well they perform. Like indiekiduk said, they bench well above what you'd expect just by looking at the clock speed.

    I just read the article by Andrew O'Hara who had to send his MBP in for repair due to the ports and graphics chip failing. One of the things I wonder was whether the graphics chips were inadequately cooled, causing early failure. It sounds like he routinely connected to an external monitor, so they were likely worked harder than if they had just been running the laptop screen and I don't know if the graphics chips have any thermal throttling mechanism like processors do.
    Which one?
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/15/i-replaced-my-mac-with-my-ipad-pro-for-a-week----heres-how-it-went
    Well, he didn’t say anything else, but the port is loose.
    Second paragraph, FTA: "The graphics chip was failing, making external monitors unusable and video editing a chore. My USB-C ports had become loose —cables would physically disconnect randomly. And the keyboard alternated between typing no spaces to typing superfluous characters."
    I was referring to “graphics chip was failing”.  We didn’t know what caused it.
  • Reply 22 of 31
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,869administrator
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    MplsP said:
    DuhSesame said:
    MplsP said:
    Interesting article. One thing I noticed when looking at the new 13" MBPs was how well they perform. Like indiekiduk said, they bench well above what you'd expect just by looking at the clock speed.

    I just read the article by Andrew O'Hara who had to send his MBP in for repair due to the ports and graphics chip failing. One of the things I wonder was whether the graphics chips were inadequately cooled, causing early failure. It sounds like he routinely connected to an external monitor, so they were likely worked harder than if they had just been running the laptop screen and I don't know if the graphics chips have any thermal throttling mechanism like processors do.
    Which one?
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/15/i-replaced-my-mac-with-my-ipad-pro-for-a-week----heres-how-it-went
    Well, he didn’t say anything else, but the port is loose.
    Second paragraph, FTA: "The graphics chip was failing, making external monitors unusable and video editing a chore. My USB-C ports had become loose —cables would physically disconnect randomly. And the keyboard alternated between typing no spaces to typing superfluous characters."
    I was referring to “graphics chip was failing”.  We didn’t know what caused it.
    Yeah, no idea. 

    That said, there's been other claims here of premature failing of the machine. It's a 2016 15-inch MBP. While I appreciate what people want, and how long machines can live, nearly three years in of heavy use can't really be considered a premature failure.
  • Reply 23 of 31
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    MplsP said:
    DuhSesame said:
    MplsP said:
    Interesting article. One thing I noticed when looking at the new 13" MBPs was how well they perform. Like indiekiduk said, they bench well above what you'd expect just by looking at the clock speed.

    I just read the article by Andrew O'Hara who had to send his MBP in for repair due to the ports and graphics chip failing. One of the things I wonder was whether the graphics chips were inadequately cooled, causing early failure. It sounds like he routinely connected to an external monitor, so they were likely worked harder than if they had just been running the laptop screen and I don't know if the graphics chips have any thermal throttling mechanism like processors do.
    Which one?
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/15/i-replaced-my-mac-with-my-ipad-pro-for-a-week----heres-how-it-went
    Well, he didn’t say anything else, but the port is loose.
    Second paragraph, FTA: "The graphics chip was failing, making external monitors unusable and video editing a chore. My USB-C ports had become loose —cables would physically disconnect randomly. And the keyboard alternated between typing no spaces to typing superfluous characters."
    I was referring to “graphics chip was failing”.  We didn’t know what caused it.
    Yeah, no idea. 

    That said, there's been other claims here of premature failing of the machine. It's a 2016 15-inch MBP. While I appreciate what people want, and how long machines can live, nearly three years in of heavy use can't really be considered a premature failure.
    Point of comparison:

    My 2016 15” MacBook Pro went in for service at 2.5 years old. The faults were:

    1. The keyboard. In addition to the typical, ostensibly debris related issues, two commonly used keys were worn out. They could be made to work by pressing the edge of the key at an angle, but not with normal typing.

    2. The USB-C ports had become so loose that drives would disconnect with the slightest bump.

    3. The screen was discoloured. A large area had a faint blue haze. I don’t know if that’s similar to Andrew’s graphics issue, but I suspect not as this was evident only on the device screen (not external monitors) and didn’t change over the course of a day. It was there on power up and looked the same at the end of the day as the beginning.

    4. The Apple Genius who evaluated the machine for intake determined that it needed a new logic board. He didn’t say why and I forgot to ask.

    The last issue resulted in having to have it repaired twice, as they installed the wrong logic board the first time. When I got it home I discovered it had a slower CPU, lower spec GPU, and only 512GB of storage instead of 2TB.
    dysamoriafastasleep
  • Reply 24 of 31
    @Lorin Schultz  That's really unfortunate! I also have a 2016 15" laptop bought on the second day after the announcement. Faults so far:

    1. Key fell out of keyboard. Replaced for free, no questions asked - came back with a new battery as well.
        Apparently eating + gaming kills butterfly keys, because if a breadcrumb goes under during a heated dungeon run you continue to mush the key until it works - breaking mechanism in the process. 

    Keyboard works great since I stopped eating at the laptop. Absolutely gorgeous machine, and Apple has the best service with several certified providers to choose from (at least here in Finland).

  • Reply 25 of 31
    mike54 said:
    Thanks for mentioning the ambient room temperature your tests were conducted at, it is a significant number, especially around here.
    Room temp of 21°C is quite cool, I wonder what the results would be like if it was 33°C.
    But I guess these laptops are designed to do work like this in well air-conditioned rooms only.
    Yeah, and what if they are used in America?
  • Reply 26 of 31
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,426member
    polymnia said:
    wizard69 said:
    The real problem  here is that the base operating frequency of 1.4GHz is crap.   Intel’s In ability to break my power usage down an honestly advance the clock rates of their chips is really hurting the industry.  The increase in single thread performance of these processors isn’t even worthy of discussion anymore.   
    This base commenting stance of doubling down on the negative leaves something to be desired as well. I commend them for not promising more, then quietly delivering a surplus on top of what was promised.
    Agree with polymnia. Computer system architecture and design is no different than every other system or process endeavor - it's always subject to the theory of constraints. One of the primary challenges faced by architects and designers is coming up with ways to compensate for the most concerning constraints while still delivering the most value and quality in the product for the target product cost. Computer architecture has always been about finding ways to compensate for real-world constraints, for example providing a small but very high speed and expensive memory cache to compensate for the slowness of primary and cost effective memory and storage. These design decisions are not arbitrary but are instead based on well understood statistical factors related to how the computer system performs when being used for a wide range of applications it will be expected to run effectively. Single thread performance is important, but multithreaded and multicore performance has become much more important over the past decade especially and cannot be ignored.

    Architects and designers of general purpose computers are always focused on the overall performance across a wide range of representative tasks. Focusing too heavily on benchmarks that accentuate singular aspects of the overall mix of expected tasks is very likely to expose where necessary compromises have been made. Unlike something designed to optimize benchmark performance, engineered products that must satisfy a wide range of applications must be designed to achieve a better-value overall design while still managing the primary constraints that drove the system design process.  Real product engineering always requires compromise. 

    I don't understand how applying fundamental and sound system design principles around the development of an engineered product is "hurting the industry" in any way. Until the laws of physics can be repealed and while still lacking a steady supply of Unobtainium magical materials that defy all known constraints, today's architects, designers, and engineers have to deal with existential constraints and live within the boundaries imposed by current technologies, materials, science, financial capital, and human understanding. 
    MplsPnot_antonpolymnia
  • Reply 27 of 31
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    MplsP said:
    DuhSesame said:
    MplsP said:
    Interesting article. One thing I noticed when looking at the new 13" MBPs was how well they perform. Like indiekiduk said, they bench well above what you'd expect just by looking at the clock speed.

    I just read the article by Andrew O'Hara who had to send his MBP in for repair due to the ports and graphics chip failing. One of the things I wonder was whether the graphics chips were inadequately cooled, causing early failure. It sounds like he routinely connected to an external monitor, so they were likely worked harder than if they had just been running the laptop screen and I don't know if the graphics chips have any thermal throttling mechanism like processors do.
    Which one?
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/15/i-replaced-my-mac-with-my-ipad-pro-for-a-week----heres-how-it-went
    Well, he didn’t say anything else, but the port is loose.
    Second paragraph, FTA: "The graphics chip was failing, making external monitors unusable and video editing a chore. My USB-C ports had become loose —cables would physically disconnect randomly. And the keyboard alternated between typing no spaces to typing superfluous characters."
    I was referring to “graphics chip was failing”.  We didn’t know what caused it.
    Yeah, no idea. 

    That said, there's been other claims here of premature failing of the machine. It's a 2016 15-inch MBP. While I appreciate what people want, and how long machines can live, nearly three years in of heavy use can't really be considered a premature failure.
    Yes it absolutely should be. What kind of use do you define as “heavy use”??
  • Reply 28 of 31
    ClarusClarus Posts: 48member
    wizard69 said:
    The real problem  here is that the base operating frequency of 1.4GHz is crap.   Intel’s In ability to break my power usage down an honestly advance the clock rates of their chips is really hurting the industry.  The increase in single thread performance of these processors isn’t even worthy of discussion anymore.   
    The 1.4GHz does not hurt anything. That's what the very article pointed out. The CPU averaged 2.7GHz, not 1.4, because the CPU is designed to give you whatever power your current applications ask for. The only reason it goes down to 1.4 is for a great benefit: If your computer isn't doing anything, the CPU can dial back further, which saves more battery power. Once you start giving it loads, Turbo Boost will let it go up as far as it can, as long as it can, until it gets too hot. You're not going to see 1.4GHz any time you are actively using the computer. Unless you're staring at the screen for 20 seconds because you haven't decided what to type or click on next; then it's probably when it will drop to 1.4. When you need it to do something, the CPU will spin up as needed. And that is exactly what you want it to do.
    edited July 2019 fastasleepMplsPmacxpress
  • Reply 29 of 31
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,758member
    Macs have come a long way in this respect.  Amongst my large collection of Macs, I have a 2012 15" i7 MBP and it could be useful for flipping over to fry eggs should the need arise. 
  • Reply 30 of 31
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,840member
    Clarus said:
    wizard69 said:
    The real problem  here is that the base operating frequency of 1.4GHz is crap.   Intel’s In ability to break my power usage down an honestly advance the clock rates of their chips is really hurting the industry.  The increase in single thread performance of these processors isn’t even worthy of discussion anymore.   
    The 1.4GHz does not hurt anything. That's what the very article pointed out. The CPU averaged 2.7GHz, not 1.4, because the CPU is designed to give you whatever power your current applications ask for. The only reason it goes down to 1.4 is for a great benefit: If your computer isn't doing anything, the CPU can dial back further, which saves more battery power. Once you start giving it loads, Turbo Boost will let it go up as far as it can, as long as it can, until it gets too hot. You're not going to see 1.4GHz any time you are actively using the computer. Unless you're staring at the screen for 20 seconds because you haven't decided what to type or click on next; then it's probably when it will drop to 1.4. When you need it to do something, the CPU will spin up as needed. And that is exactly what you want it to do.
    Well some people like Wizard are purely concerned with specs I guess. Don't you remember from the mid-2000's between the G4/G5 and the Intel PIII/P4, higher CPU speeds equal better performance! /s
    edited July 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.