Apple has been form over function for some time. It's unfortunate, their quest for sleek and thin, rather than functional. Not only performance, but keyboard ergonomics (and reliability) are at issue with the 2016 and newer models. The same has of course been true of the current Mac Pro - too much form over function, and customers started to turn up their noses. Apple needs to reel in their designers and allow the engineers to build better, more functional machines. The quest for thin and small needs to stop, and reverse course a bit.
Like the billion times I said, only gaming laptops can keep an i9 under control. MacBook Pros aren't that bad when compared to others under 25mm.
Do you have any interest in running another benchmark with just the cpu engaged? For some of the software developers in your audience, they will only care how well it performs when only the cpu is kicking out heat.
You’re doing it wrong. Offices are supposed to be well chilled.
Kind of sad the i9 is a waste of money...
I’m sure the iMac Pro also has thermal issues. All of Apple’s designers/QC testers must be assigned to iPhone & IPad...
Well, short-time burst, so not all waste. iMac Pro probably can keep the 18-core under control, at least not a terrific drop.
I think that’s the problem with Intel, which they did not really build their mobile processors for anything under 25mm. If that’s the case, simply let it run slower so people will purchase those really huge ones.
Intel screwed up thermal efficiency quiet a few times since Pentium 4 (I’m sure some of you rememberers that).
Prescott because the architecture, Haswell because of FIVR, and Coffee Lake because it can’t bring 10nm in.
Do you have any interest in running another benchmark with just the cpu engaged? For some of the software developers in your audience, they will only care how well it performs when only the cpu is kicking out heat.
FWIW: I repeatedly got GB4 single-core scores of 504X and multi-core scores of 224XX on a 2.2 GHz model on display in an Apple Store. If GB4 scaled linearly with clock speed, one would predict a multicore score of 29600 for the Core i9 model. This isn't a completely unreasonable expectation because the i9 has 12 MB L3 cache vs. only 9 MB in the 6-core i7 models. Due to throttling and the fact that main memory is the same speed across all models, the best i9-8950HK benchmarks don't even come close to 29600. Even PCs with faster 2666 memory aren't close to 29600.
Is the i7 throttled as well? How does i7 performance compare to the spec? How does i7 throttled compare to i9 throttled?
Watch the video.
The i7 (advertised at 2.2GHz base & 4.1GHz Turbo Boost) stayed at around 2.3 - 2.6GHz average clock speed during back-to-back CPU tests in Cinebench R15. Reached a peak of 3.8GHz when the test started.
The i9 (advertised at 2.9GHz base & 4.8GHz Turbo Boost) was at around 2.4 - 2.8GHz average clock speed. Reached a peak of 4.2GHz when the test started.
I have a 2017 15” MBP. I like it. I wouldn’t want them to change the form factor.
There are two fundamental problems here from my point of view:
1. Apple should not offer the i9 as an option if it has no real advantage. A big part of the advantage of Apple is that they don’t dump design decisions on the user.
2. Apple needs to offer better pro desktop options. The iMac pro is ok but we need a real pro desktop. If there were a real pro desktop option then people would be more willing to accept the compromises inherent in an elegantly designed laptop
I guess blame it all on Intel. That's what Apple is doing - Intel promised lower power chips, and didn't deliver.
If they did not offer the i9, Dave Lee and pretty much everyone else on the internet would endlessly whine about it. As it is, shipping the i9 was the right decision even though I'm super disappointed with this and won't get one as planned now.
It's possible Intel will fix this by providing better chips to Apple, or Apple can do some magic with fan management - it's still possible there are bugs in the fan management software and it's just throttling more than it needs to be.
@AppleInsider - I would love for you to do a processor test that doesn't use the GPU as well.
Because if you use the GPU, there's a second massive heat source in the system. If you run without GPU, you should see less throttling?! I am not sure Adobe Premiere and Cinebench are using the GPU, but the article seems to imply at lease Premiere does.
In my own tests trying to play a game on my MBP, just running the GPU would nearly overheat the system, didn't even need a lot of CPU power for that.
Maybe I scanned something wrong, but the difference between your 2018 and 2017 numbers seems off. You have 24326 for 2018 i9 and 22179 for 2017 i7. MacRumors has 22439 for i9 and 15548 for i7.
You're going from four to six cores. Seems like your increase for 6 core should be more than 9.6% more than four. I'd guess those i7 numbers in the video are wrong.
Maybe I scanned something wrong, but the difference between your 2018 and 2017 numbers seems off. You have 24326 for 2018 i9 and 22179 for 2017 i7. MacRumors has 22439 for i9 and 15548 for i7.
You're going from four to six cores. Seems like your increase for 6 core should be more than 9.6% more than four. I'd guess those i7 numbers in the video are wrong.
What am I missing?
Are you talking about the article or the video? The article doesn't address the 2017 benchmarks at all, really.
Is the i7 throttled as well? How does i7 performance compare to the spec? How does i7 throttled compare to i9 throttled?
Watch the video.
The i7 (advertised at 2.2GHz base & 4.1GHz Turbo Boost) stayed at around 2.3 - 2.6GHz average clock speed during back-to-back CPU tests in Cinebench R15. Reached a peak of 3.8GHz when the test started.
The i9 (advertised at 2.9GHz base & 4.8GHz Turbo Boost) was at around 2.4 - 2.8GHz average clock speed. Reached a peak of 4.2GHz when the test started.
Thanks. Hadn’t watched the video yet. I meant to ask about the 2.6 i7 vs the 2.2 i7. I already have an order shipping to me for i9. Wondering if I should return and go for base i7 2.2 or i7 2.6. If thermals are going to hold me back, then perhaps the base i7 is fine because the others can’t reach their potential. I’m coming from an i5 mid-2014 13” Pro, so any of these will be an upgrade.
Cheap gags aside, am I to understand we're not seeing similar issues with the quad-core 13"? Or the hex-core i7? Or is it just that everyone bought the i9 because they wanted MOAR POWER!!!, and so we don't have anyone testing the lower tiers?
I did an informal test with my new 13” MBP with an i7. I have a command line tool that runs multiple copies of the OpenSSL speed test that maxes out all 8 threads. I let it run for 10 minutes until the fans were maxed out and then ran GB4. I saw a minor 1% to 2.5% slow down. It doesn’t look like it is throttling much. I plan to do more testing this weekend. The core i7 13” MBP is a beast. I’m getting 5400 single core and 19100 multi core.
blastdoor said: There are two fundamental problems here from my point of view:
1. Apple should not offer the i9 as an option if it has no real advantage. A big part of the advantage of Apple is that they don’t dump design decisions on the user.
There might be advantages for some, though. For example, you could run a couple VMs with 2 cores each and still have 2 cores for apps. You won't get as much maximum speed on each core, but I think it would better distribute.
anome said: ... am I to understand we're not seeing similar issues with the quad-core 13"? Or the hex-core i7?
Good question! I'm more interested in the 13", but haven't seen any poor reviews on that yet.
zeudev said: Do you have any interest in running another benchmark with just the cpu engaged? For some of the software developers in your audience, they will only care how well it performs when only the cpu is kicking out heat.
Yes, good point... or as others have said, with an eGPU.
caladanian said: The iMac Pro does not(!) have thermal issues. Other iMacs have (different heat flow).
Not really thermal issues, but I thought I remember reading that it does throttle in a way... just way up there (slight reduction from max potential of the chips).
I have a solution for Apple. Resurrect the 2015 design of 15" MacBook Pro and bring back the missing ports. The body has more room in it, so use the extra room to dissipate the heat better.
Comments
Like the billion times I said, only gaming laptops can keep an i9 under control. MacBook Pros aren't that bad when compared to others under 25mm.
Kind of sad the i9 is a waste of money...
I’m sure the iMac Pro also has thermal issues. All of Apple’s designers/QC testers must be assigned to iPhone & IPad...
Do you have any interest in running another benchmark with just the cpu engaged? For some of the software developers in your audience, they will only care how well it performs when only the cpu is kicking out heat.
I think that’s the problem with Intel, which they did not really build their mobile processors for anything under 25mm. If that’s the case, simply let it run slower so people will purchase those really huge ones.
Intel screwed up thermal efficiency quiet a few times since Pentium 4 (I’m sure some of you rememberers that).
Prescott because the architecture, Haswell because of FIVR, and Coffee Lake because it can’t bring 10nm in.
The i7 (advertised at 2.2GHz base & 4.1GHz Turbo Boost) stayed at around 2.3 - 2.6GHz average clock speed during back-to-back CPU tests in Cinebench R15.
Reached a peak of 3.8GHz when the test started.
Reached a peak of 4.2GHz when the test started.
You're going from four to six cores. Seems like your increase for 6 core should be more than 9.6% more than four. I'd guess those i7 numbers in the video are wrong.
Good question! I'm more interested in the 13", but haven't seen any poor reviews on that yet.
Yes, good point... or as others have said, with an eGPU.
Not really thermal issues, but I thought I remember reading that it does throttle in a way... just way up there (slight reduction from max potential of the chips).