rogifan_new said: Apparently this YouTubeer also saw massive throttling with the Dell XPS. But yet it’s so much easier to bring out the tired Apple is obsessed with thinness trope.
By the way, Apple’s not going to completely redesign a chassis mid design cycle because an Intel chip runs hot. Apple could have refused to offer this upgrade but then people would’ve been bitching about that.
If Apple isn't going to redesign then don't offer CPU's that underperform! You really think Apple offers options based on what people bitch about? Hilarious!!!
People have bitched that they don't need 2 day battery life and to give them fatter Macbooks that can use 32GB DDR4, but Apple persists on thin designs with CPU's that can only handle 16GB DDR3L because of battery life.
Apple doesn't kowtow to what people "bitch about". If this is true about the i9, it's really sad that Apple would release a high-end/high-cost product that fails to perform. And, if true, either they didn't test it well (inexcusable) or they knew it and released it anyways (unthinkable).
Also, Dell vs Apple -- According to (practically everyone here, including you) isn't Apple supposed to be setting a higher standard than Dell? Doesn't everyone hold Apple to higher standards? So now you say, what's good for Dell is good for Apple?
You're aware that the 15-inch MBP now uses DDR4, right?
Of course I do. You really think this is because of people bitching about it wanting it, though? They could have offered faster Macbooks with DDR4 and 32GB RAM in previous generations, but chose not to because it would decrease battery life. A choice they made over public want.
I think it is a response to customer complaints. Given that it was less than a year from the 2016 to the 2017, I think that they were already locked in. I suspect that the 2018 model is the first year that they could do it, given engineering lead times.
I think you're right that they didn't do it at launch because of battery life impact, but re-engineered the battery to allow for it in this iteration.
I bought it and it's going to straight back. I got a 2017 MacBook Pro with whatever the best model CPU at that time was. and I can't say the 2018 is slower, but it isn't faster, the video export finished in about the same time. And also FYI, its not faster in Final Cut Pro, I tried it too. and graphics is exactly the same for me almost. I am not saying Apple lied or anything, but they were not honest in spirit. I do agree it is up to 80 percent faster, like I can prove that when I do a geek bench test. But prolonged load makes it not faster at all. Honestly, this is what people are looking for, prolonged load with great performance.
I know a friend who has the Aero, it's very slightly larger, but it does perform like a champion. I am not sure if apple now has stooped to the level of needing to learn pc OEMs. They have top notch engineering talent, the iPad Pro and iPhone and apple watches prove it. I have this nagging feeling that its always the D team working on these MacBooks. I remember when the MacBook Air was hands down the best hardware you could buy, like you couldn't go to any pc OEM and get a notebook with that battery life and thinness. Same with the 2013 MacBook Pro Retina display. They were miles ahead. Now they can't seem to keep up.
Then there is the garbage AMD GPU in the MacBook Pro's. The amount of power they give per watt is abysmal compared to Nvidia products and this has been proven a thousand times in every review. But fine, apple likes AMD for Metal Support. FINE. Where is the e-gpu support for Nvidia? non-existent (according to apple engineers Mojave has accommodations if Nvidia wants to make their own drivers). But where is the bootcamp e-gpu support? Where is...... the list goes on and on. They should move faster. I am saying this with proof because Microsoft is moving much faster. I have a gaming pc and that's fine, but otherwise I would have had NO OPTION but to leave apple.
I am not going to abandon the MacBook Pro yet. But the thought did cross my mind for the first time since I had a MacBook Air over a decade ago. I sincerely hope Apple reconsiders a lot of stuff
rogifan_new said: Apparently this YouTubeer also saw massive throttling with the Dell XPS. But yet it’s so much easier to bring out the tired Apple is obsessed with thinness trope.
By the way, Apple’s not going to completely redesign a chassis mid design cycle because an Intel chip runs hot. Apple could have refused to offer this upgrade but then people would’ve been bitching about that.
If Apple isn't going to redesign then don't offer CPU's that underperform! You really think Apple offers options based on what people bitch about? Hilarious!!!
People have bitched that they don't need 2 day battery life and to give them fatter Macbooks that can use 32GB DDR4, but Apple persists on thin designs with CPU's that can only handle 16GB DDR3L because of battery life.
Apple doesn't kowtow to what people "bitch about". If this is true about the i9, it's really sad that Apple would release a high-end/high-cost product that fails to perform. And, if true, either they didn't test it well (inexcusable) or they knew it and released it anyways (unthinkable).
Also, Dell vs Apple -- According to (practically everyone here, including you) isn't Apple supposed to be setting a higher standard than Dell? Doesn't everyone hold Apple to higher standards? So now you say, what's good for Dell is good for Apple?
This isn’t me. Lots of people hold up the Dell XPS as a top of the line Windows PC. Some even claim it’s better than a Mac. I’m just pointing out that it too has throttling issues so this isn’t just Apple and it’s obsession with thinness. And if Apple had upended their mid-design cycle with a thicker and heavier laptop Marco Arment and his ilk would have been happy but all the tech writers and hipsters over at the Verge would’ve been hating on Apple for going backwards. I remember everyone complaining about the 3rd gen iPad getting thicker and heavier.
...the 2011 17" i7 quad core I tried for a while would ramp fans to 4k just connecting a large monitor...
'Downgrading' to the 2010 i7 dual core solved that issue for me, even working with a 4k display quietly now - as I recall the newer design (2012+) trumpeted better thermal design to address the quad core and graphics card thermal issues, alas no 17" as we all know - hopefully this i9 test is anomalous, although thermal design and sustained load heat, performance and noise are primary questions for me...
For consideration: www.macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2017-sustained-performance.html www.macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20170811_1333-kernel-task-using-all-cores.html and somewhat ironically www.macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20170125_1014-2016MacBookProTouchBar-ColdConditions.html
This isn’t me. Lots of people hold up the Dell XPS as a top of the line Windows PC. Some even claim it’s better than a Mac. I’m just pointing out that it too has throttling issues so this isn’t just Apple and it’s obsession with thinness. And if Apple had upended their mid-design cycle with a thicker and heavier laptop Marco Arment and his ilk would have been happy but all the tech writers and hipsters over at the Verge would’ve been hating on Apple for going backwards. I remember everyone complaining about the 3rd gen iPad getting thicker and heavier.
Why does one company doing something stupid excuse another? The XPS is a well built windows laptop however Dell had no business putting the i9 into that and the same goes for Apple. They both knew it would throttle.
Putting hardware into a thermal envelope that cannot come anywhere near handling it is not ok. Some limited throttling is tolerable on locked chips as long as they still get near their potential for intended uses. But if you're going to put an unlocked chip in a machine it needs thermal headroom. Otherwise it's just a deceitful money grab.
This isn’t me. Lots of people hold up the Dell XPS as a top of the line Windows PC. Some even claim it’s better than a Mac. I’m just pointing out that it too has throttling issues so this isn’t just Apple and it’s obsession with thinness. And if Apple had upended their mid-design cycle with a thicker and heavier laptop Marco Arment and his ilk would have been happy but all the tech writers and hipsters over at the Verge would’ve been hating on Apple for going backwards. I remember everyone complaining about the 3rd gen iPad getting thicker and heavier.
Why does one company doing something stupid excuse another? The XPS is a well built windows laptop however Dell had no business putting the i9 into that and the same goes for Apple. They both knew it would throttle.
Putting hardware into a thermal envelope that cannot come anywhere near handling it is not ok. Some limited throttling is tolerable on locked chips as long as they still get near their potential for intended uses. But if you're going to put an unlocked chip in a machine it needs thermal headroom. Otherwise it's just a deceitful money grab.
Shame on both Dell and Apple for this nonsense.
I’m going to wait for reviews. People need to stop being hysterical before even one proper review has landed. Has software even been optimized for this machine? Should we judge it based on one application that has never been known to be optimized for Macs? If someone absolutely has to use Premire perhaps a Mac isn’t the best laptop for them.
rogifan_new said: Apparently this YouTubeer also saw massive throttling with the Dell XPS. But yet it’s so much easier to bring out the tired Apple is obsessed with thinness trope.
By the way, Apple’s not going to completely redesign a chassis mid design cycle because an Intel chip runs hot. Apple could have refused to offer this upgrade but then people would’ve been bitching about that.
If Apple isn't going to redesign then don't offer CPU's that underperform! You really think Apple offers options based on what people bitch about? Hilarious!!!
People have bitched that they don't need 2 day battery life and to give them fatter Macbooks that can use 32GB DDR4, but Apple persists on thin designs with CPU's that can only handle 16GB DDR3L because of battery life.
Apple doesn't kowtow to what people "bitch about". If this is true about the i9, it's really sad that Apple would release a high-end/high-cost product that fails to perform. And, if true, either they didn't test it well (inexcusable) or they knew it and released it anyways (unthinkable).
Also, Dell vs Apple -- According to (practically everyone here, including you) isn't Apple supposed to be setting a higher standard than Dell? Doesn't everyone hold Apple to higher standards? So now you say, what's good for Dell is good for Apple?
This isn’t me. Lots of people hold up the Dell XPS as a top of the line Windows PC. Some even claim it’s better than a Mac. I’m just pointing out that it too has throttling issues so this isn’t just Apple and it’s obsession with thinness. And if Apple had upended their mid-design cycle with a thicker and heavier laptop Marco Arment and his ilk would have been happy but all the tech writers and hipsters over at the Verge would’ve been hating on Apple for going backwards. I remember everyone complaining about the 3rd gen iPad getting thicker and heavier.
Look dude nobody is talking about their design or going back on it or whatever else. the press is irrelevant to this matter and to the many consumers who will pay nearly 3000 dollars for this MacBook. They put out a product that is supposedly up to 80 percent faster which really isn't the case. The cooling they have is inadequate for the processor they put out. It's a bad product for this reason. The problems Dell has are irrelevant to the matter.
This isn’t me. Lots of people hold up the Dell XPS as a top of the line Windows PC. Some even claim it’s better than a Mac. I’m just pointing out that it too has throttling issues so this isn’t just Apple and it’s obsession with thinness. And if Apple had upended their mid-design cycle with a thicker and heavier laptop Marco Arment and his ilk would have been happy but all the tech writers and hipsters over at the Verge would’ve been hating on Apple for going backwards. I remember everyone complaining about the 3rd gen iPad getting thicker and heavier.
Why does one company doing something stupid excuse another? The XPS is a well built windows laptop however Dell had no business putting the i9 into that and the same goes for Apple. They both knew it would throttle.
Putting hardware into a thermal envelope that cannot come anywhere near handling it is not ok. Some limited throttling is tolerable on locked chips as long as they still get near their potential for intended uses. But if you're going to put an unlocked chip in a machine it needs thermal headroom. Otherwise it's just a deceitful money grab.
Shame on both Dell and Apple for this nonsense.
I’m going to wait for reviews. People need to stop being hysterical before even one proper review has landed. Has software even been optimized for this machine? Should we judge it based on one application that has never been known to be optimized for Macs? If someone absolutely has to use Premire perhaps a Mac isn’t the best laptop for them.
There is nothing to optimize, it's literally the same core architecture as the last generation. this is yet another intel Tick, not a tock.
Why the hysterics? It is valid criticism. If the i9 throttling is so bad that it underperforms the i7 that is a serious issue which you should not seek to hide. Had I paid a premium for the i9 I'd be p*ssed.
The comment regarding optimisation is nonsense, the app is not the point. The point is that when it comes to heavy work the i9 will be slower than the i7.
This isn’t me. Lots of people hold up the Dell XPS as a top of the line Windows PC. Some even claim it’s better than a Mac. I’m just pointing out that it too has throttling issues so this isn’t just Apple and it’s obsession with thinness. And if Apple had upended their mid-design cycle with a thicker and heavier laptop Marco Arment and his ilk would have been happy but all the tech writers and hipsters over at the Verge would’ve been hating on Apple for going backwards. I remember everyone complaining about the 3rd gen iPad getting thicker and heavier.
Why does one company doing something stupid excuse another? The XPS is a well built windows laptop however Dell had no business putting the i9 into that and the same goes for Apple. They both knew it would throttle.
Putting hardware into a thermal envelope that cannot come anywhere near handling it is not ok. Some limited throttling is tolerable on locked chips as long as they still get near their potential for intended uses. But if you're going to put an unlocked chip in a machine it needs thermal headroom. Otherwise it's just a deceitful money grab.
Shame on both Dell and Apple for this nonsense.
I’m going to wait for reviews. People need to stop being hysterical before even one proper review has landed. Has software even been optimized for this machine? Should we judge it based on one application that has never been known to be optimized for Macs? If someone absolutely has to use Premire perhaps a Mac isn’t the best laptop for them.
Optimization (whatever that is) is irrelevant to the main issue. It's not that a Windows machine was faster than the Macs, it's that last year's Mac was faster than this year's more expensive version. That's literally an Apples-to-Apples comparison.
Obviously one test is not grounds for a conclusion, so you're right that we have to wait to see if others get similar results. Still, while it may be too early to dismiss the new model, absent any clear indication of faulty methods in this initial test it may be reasonable to hold off a purchase until the jury returns.
I started to question Dave2D approach when he tested multiple laptops. Sure it does thermal throttle but hell. Macs are optimized for Mac applications. This is simply stupid from him. Try to benchtest Final cut Pro from a PC. Even though this is impossible, I'm sure it would perform badly.
This video shows FCPX comparisons. 2018 performed slower than 2017 while rendering in Final Cut
Has FCPX been optimized for the new machines yet? These laptops haven’t even been out a week and already the hystronics are over the top. Seems like this guy is just looking for traffic to his YouTube site.
What about all the other apps? If I'm gaming or rendering from another app why should I put up with performance below the i7 and even slower than the base clock of the i9? "You're using the wrong app" is the most ridiculous excuse.
He should have tested it with a native Mac app like FCP first in order to establish a base-line. Using a POS app like anything Adobe is NOT the way to do it. Heck, why didn't he just run Flash on it for the same effect?
I use Adobe's Lightroom for photography work and let me tell you, it is a gigantic steaming pile of crap. Certain basic tasks will literally bring my 2015 Quad I7 with 64GB RAM machine to its knees. It's shameful really.
Adobe writes crappy software, runs it on non-optimized on a Mac, and Apple gets (no pun) the heat for it? Color me shocked.
I could have told you that, even before Mr. Lee's findings. A lot of people who embrace butterfly keyboards and impossibly thin designs don't give much consideration to thermal throttling. But it is a reality. Another sad fact is that it has been shown that Apple uses vastly inferior thermal paste between GPU and CPU chips and their heatsinks. It would only cost them pennies more to use a half-way decent thermal paste. So in addition to the fact that the thermal cooling in super thin designs like the 2016 and later MBP is inadequate to prevent throttling, thermal paste used does not transfer heat as well is it could. Here's a SnazzyLabs Video that might help convince some of you.
I've long called for the thinning of the MBP to end. The thickness of the 2015 MBP is quite thin yet not too thin. It allows for a good sized battery and for better cooling. And while I think Apple should continue to strive for thinness, that doesn't mean it has to be the MBP. Supreme thinness and lightness is what the MacBook is for. Butterfly keyboards too. But the MBP needs to be "Pro" all around in terms of cooling, thermal performance, battery size, ports-a-plenty, an internal SD card slot, and thick enough to accommodate a great keyboard with sufficient key travel that (a) will satisfy pretty much all users and (b) won't be harmed by specs of dust under the keys. Indeed, on my 2015 MBP 15" I can remove the keys.
These important considerations need to be made more serious by Apple engineers in future designs. Take everything you want away on the MacBook, but put the beefy stuff in the MacBook Pro. Make the MacBook Air a hybrid of the two, and then you have 3 product lines that can please every Mac notebook buyer. Seriously. It's not that hard. It's just a matter of Apple rethinking its design decisions.
This is what I came here to say, so... er, just re-read jdw's comments.
The problem here is that Apple decided to cram what is probably Intel's hottest and most power hungry mobile chip ever(i9) into that same thin chassis (I'm sure Haswell could have given it a good run though). The i9 is unlocked and designed to run as hot and heavy as your cooling and power will allow it.
Even with a beefier HSF, I'm not sure how much you're going to get out of the i9 with an 87w PSU but let's start with performing as advertised.
In Apple's defense, just about every notebook is having problems containing this beast even gaming notebooks from Alienware and MSI that have much better cooling than Apple's HSF design and it takes a lot of tweaking, repasting with liquid metal, BIOS level adjustments and sometimes physical modifications to run the chip in a decent capacity (defined as running as advertised or better).
On the opposite end you have systems from Clevo/Sager that are brick houses with 3lb power supplies and 12lb chassis that can only last a few hours on battery and sound like a jet engine under load but...BUT....they have lights out performance and run as fast as desktops because they use desktop CPUs and desktop class GPUs.
I find it hard to believe that Apple didn't benchmark and do sustained under load runs even with their own suite of computationally taxing software (FCP for one) and see that these chips heated up under long jobs and thermal throttled to well under the rated 2.9 on all cores? That even presented with compelling data they still pushed this through?
and then we have those who clamor to Apple's defense by railing on Dell? DELL? You're using Dell as your watermark? Ok.
One thing Apple CAN do, firmware/BIOS update wise, is adjust llc with a touch of undervolt to combat out of control thermals to find out the perfect sweet spot for sustained loads. It might not get to 2.9ghz across all cores, but it will be better.
I'm not looking for the exceptional above and beyond performance that the i9 can eeek out
in top shelf gaming laptops from Alienware and MSI after much poking
and prodding. I'm just looking for the CPU to perform as advertised (4.8
one core, 2.9 all cores) under sustained load. Apple has long needed to set their baseline to, "We need the hardware to perform as advertised and build around that."
So pick your poison or acknowledge there is a level of compromise
somewhere in there Apple might want to acknowledge and address and
adjust their Form:Function ratios a bit.
I started to question Dave2D approach when he tested multiple laptops. Sure it does thermal throttle but hell. Macs are optimized for Mac applications. This is simply stupid from him. Try to benchtest Final cut Pro from a PC. Even though this is impossible, I'm sure it would perform badly.
This video shows FCPX comparisons. 2018 performed slower than 2017 while rendering in Final Cut
Considering it was faster in pretty much everything else it could just be a temporary anomaly. It’s not necessarily conclusive at this point. Perhaps the Final Cut developers need to implement something to maximise performance in the new machines for exporting 4K video.
We certainly can’t count on anything Adobe when it comes to software optimised for macOS in any capacity.
Some of these apps use both the CPU and GPU meaning the thermal load is higher than if just the CPU is used on its own. Some Adobe software features are tuned for NVidia GPUs (CUDA), they also use a whitelist for GPUs so new GPU models are sometimes disabled. Cinebench is a test that uses the CPU on its own and would show whether it was worth adding a 6-core CPU.
Laptops should also be raised off the surface they are on. The air is pushed out the gap under the display. That should be raised up in mid-air to allow the air to flow freely out and cool down e.g using stands like the following:
It's not necessary to run the laptop in a freezer but for the best performance, an external cooling option would help, especially targeting the air near the vent. A desk fan blowing over the vent in hot weather can help keep the laptop much cooler than on its own.
It would be nice if a company could design an attractive cooling system, the options tend to be garish designs aimed at gamers:
There was a pad that used a gel and no fans - https://www.quietpc.com/nx-tdd-9000 - it didn't seem to work in all cases but some kind of liquid cooling inside a metal chassis would draw heat away from the base of the laptop. It could even be a fan that sucks the air away from the back vent over some heatsink or blows cold air up through the vent.
This doesn't surprise me too much. Doesn't the iMac Pro even do this?
It does surprise me a bit, though, that it would be slower than the 2017. Aren't both CPUs similar in terms of thermals? The same chassis should have similar thermal handling capabilities... though MBPs have never handled heat all that well in my experience. And, at least in the past, the problems went beyond the CPU throttling down, but resulted in damage to other components.
Like I said before, nope. Same 14nm and two extra cores, you’d only expect it to be hotter.
But it’s not only the MacBook Pro that throttles, most of the laptops do back in the 4th generation.
Thermal throttling is quite an acceptable practice, the issue here is that the new higher-end 2018 Macbook Pro throttles so much that it performs worse than lower-end cheaper 2017 models, now THAT is a big prblem.
Not really. Like what I said before, majority of them with a 8th gen i7/i9 throttles to the same frequency.But six is still better than four for the most applications.
This doesn't surprise me too much. Doesn't the iMac Pro even do this?
It does surprise me a bit, though, that it would be slower than the 2017. Aren't both CPUs similar in terms of thermals? The same chassis should have similar thermal handling capabilities... though MBPs have never handled heat all that well in my experience. And, at least in the past, the problems went beyond the CPU throttling down, but resulted in damage to other components.
Like I said before, nope. Same 14nm and two extra cores, you’d only expect it to be hotter. But it’s not only the MacBook Pro that throttles, most of the laptops do back in the 4th generation.
Sorry, I'm confused now... what part do you mean 'nope' to? Is the TDP per core? I thought the TDP was for the whole cpu-package, and is the same between 2017 and 2018... which should mean the same heat output.
Rayz2016 said: One thing you definitely don't know is as much about cooling components as Apple does. I've had laptops with much larger cases (Dells and an Asus) and much bigger fans; I've burned through three of them; in the same seven years that my old MacBook Pro has kept going while only being restarted for updates and holidays.
I've gone through two Apple 'pro' laptops as well due to thermal issues damaging internal components (and component issues)... so, what does that mean? As I was saying previously... this isn't really anything new. Apple (and other makers) seem to really push the thermals on these machines. I'd also trade some size (and you're right, I don't know how much) for cooler, quieter, etc.
This doesn't surprise me too much. Doesn't the iMac Pro even do this?
It does surprise me a bit, though, that it would be slower than the 2017. Aren't both CPUs similar in terms of thermals? The same chassis should have similar thermal handling capabilities... though MBPs have never handled heat all that well in my experience. And, at least in the past, the problems went beyond the CPU throttling down, but resulted in damage to other components.
Like I said before, nope. Same 14nm and two extra cores, you’d only expect it to be hotter. But it’s not only the MacBook Pro that throttles, most of the laptops do back in the 4th generation.
Sorry, I'm confused now... what part do you mean 'nope' to? Is the TDP per core? I thought the TDP was for the whole cpu-package, and is the same between 2017 and 2018... which should mean the same heat output.
See that tricks me in the early days as well, which I think it wouldn't be so bad to keep something under 45W to cool.
But what TDP really means, I think, is "the smallest value of a cooler you can put on top of our processors". something can cool down 45W at maximum will work at least, but will not sustain it's maximum turbo boost frequency at all. That's the basic practice among the industries today, where you'll always expect the fastest core i7 runs more than 60-70W when tested.
And each and every processors comes with a different thermal output as well. An i7-8750H can be either much cooler, or just as hot as an Core i9, mostly because TDP also rated in "the maximum value from a processor family".
What. Apple designed a laptop that cannot keep itself cool.
"BUT THE APP ISN'T OPTIMIZED!!!"
What the hell is that supposed to mean. A machine ought to be able to keep itself cool under all conditions. PCs do. Why should apple be the exception. Golly, you people need to get that apple dick outta your mouths
Comments
I think you're right that they didn't do it at launch because of battery life impact, but re-engineered the battery to allow for it in this iteration.
'Downgrading' to the 2010 i7 dual core solved that issue for me, even working with a 4k display quietly now - as I recall the newer design (2012+) trumpeted better thermal design to address the quad core and graphics card thermal issues, alas no 17" as we all know - hopefully this i9 test is anomalous, although thermal design and sustained load heat, performance and noise are primary questions for me...
For consideration:
www.macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2017-sustained-performance.html
www.macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20170811_1333-kernel-task-using-all-cores.html
and somewhat ironically www.macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20170125_1014-2016MacBookProTouchBar-ColdConditions.html
Putting hardware into a thermal envelope that cannot come anywhere near handling it is not ok. Some limited throttling is tolerable on locked chips as long as they still get near their potential for intended uses. But if you're going to put an unlocked chip in a machine it needs thermal headroom. Otherwise it's just a deceitful money grab.
Shame on both Dell and Apple for this nonsense.
Obviously one test is not grounds for a conclusion, so you're right that we have to wait to see if others get similar results. Still, while it may be too early to dismiss the new model, absent any clear indication of faulty methods in this initial test it may be reasonable to hold off a purchase until the jury returns.
I use Adobe's Lightroom for photography work and let me tell you, it is a gigantic steaming pile of crap. Certain basic tasks will literally bring my 2015 Quad I7 with 64GB RAM machine to its knees. It's shameful really.
Adobe writes crappy software, runs it on non-optimized on a Mac, and Apple gets (no pun) the heat for it? Color me shocked.
Laptops should also be raised off the surface they are on. The air is pushed out the gap under the display. That should be raised up in mid-air to allow the air to flow freely out and cool down e.g using stands like the following:
http://cdn.colourmylearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve-South-ParcSlope-C.jpg
http://g01.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB19revLpXXXXbAXpXXq6xXFXXX8/Silver-Universal-Aluminum-font-b-Laptop-b-font-font-b-Stand-b-font-Tablet-Holder-Bracket.jpg
It's not necessary to run the laptop in a freezer but for the best performance, an external cooling option would help, especially targeting the air near the vent. A desk fan blowing over the vent in hot weather can help keep the laptop much cooler than on its own.
It would be nice if a company could design an attractive cooling system, the options tend to be garish designs aimed at gamers:
https://www.imore.com/best-cooling-pads-macbook-pro
There was a pad that used a gel and no fans - https://www.quietpc.com/nx-tdd-9000 - it didn't seem to work in all cases but some kind of liquid cooling inside a metal chassis would draw heat away from the base of the laptop. It could even be a fan that sucks the air away from the back vent over some heatsink or blows cold air up through the vent.
I've gone through two Apple 'pro' laptops as well due to thermal issues damaging internal components (and component issues)... so, what does that mean? As I was saying previously... this isn't really anything new. Apple (and other makers) seem to really push the thermals on these machines. I'd also trade some size (and you're right, I don't know how much) for cooler, quieter, etc.
See that tricks me in the early days as well, which I think it wouldn't be so bad to keep something under 45W to cool.
But what TDP really means, I think, is "the smallest value of a cooler you can put on top of our processors". something can cool down 45W at maximum will work at least, but will not sustain it's maximum turbo boost frequency at all. That's the basic practice among the industries today, where you'll always expect the fastest core i7 runs more than 60-70W when tested.
And each and every processors comes with a different thermal output as well. An i7-8750H can be either much cooler, or just as hot as an Core i9, mostly because TDP also rated in "the maximum value from a processor family".