Also one problem what Louis Rossmann noted in previous generation macbooks the fans only starts to spin when computer hits 82 Celsius. And till 95 it runs in minium RPM and it will never get to full RPM before thermal shutdown.
So they could improve it much but it's more important to keep it quiet than last over 3 years before it burns itself completedly. Ofc this can be fixed by downloading fan control app but it is still over 6k laptop (7,5k in my country) at its highest you shouldn't need to download external app to give the laptop doubled lifespan.
I sincerely hope that people out there run these tests across ALL the 2018 Macbook Pros, including the 13" models, to see if any of them can out perform the earlier models.
It's so ironic - I'm used to dealing with Apple not designing Macbook Pros to handle the GPUs, because they design the thermals for the base configuration. I always get the high end version, and I always have heating problems. So when I saw that Apple now has discrete GPUs in ALL versions of the 2015 Macbook Pro, I thought "FANTASTIC! Apple will finally have to design the thermals to accommodate a discrete GPU. And now this happens.
Did I mention the enormous volume of these fans drives me batty? I had to hack my Macbook Pro to keep the fans on all the time at a low level so that they wouldn't spike up to a high level whose I couldn't bear.
Notebookchecks observations are interesting and come to the same conclusion - on the 13", it jumps up to 50W power use before crashing down to 20W, and repeating that cycle. The comparable T480S rather sticks to a more middling 35W - and completes the test 20% faster for it.
So the solution could be two halves, one, allowing the fans to ramp more quickly on the i9. Two, making its peak burst shorter in duration before settling at a more middling clock speed, so that it doesn't crater down past base.
I was able to reduce throttling a lot on my fully specced 2016 macbook pro by getting a metal stand that passively cooled the laptop. The metal exterior works as a heat sink and cooling the outside helps a lot. I would be interested seeing this test again using a couple different exterior cooling options for the macbook. Also when I went to an EGPU it was totally not an issue for me anymore that I noticed so that would be a great test as well. The only time you keep the CPU continually pegged aside from benchmarks would most often be games or renders.
If all cores are at work, 4.8GHz the i9 will use around 120Watts. So you need a power adapter let’s say 320Watt? And amazing cooling to handle this speed continuously.
BTW - as a way of comparison... Here's a quick run of our custom scientific simulation software using 4 cores in my 2017 MBP that with a 3.1GHz i7-7920HQ that can turbo to 4.1 GHz:
As you can see it looks like it's thermal throttling - but it's actually not. Those dips in frequency actually correspond to dips in the instruction intensity of our software. This is software that gets run on the largets computers in the world (literally... later this year we're planning a run that uses all of the new Summit supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory... which is currently THE fastest computer in the world (according to Top500 anyway))... so it has been incredibly optimized... but even it still has dips and stalls that allow the processor to clock down slightly.
I would expect something like a rendering program to have even more... it probably has to do plenty of file i/o... at least writing out the frames! Every time it goes to the filesystem the CPU frequency will drop because the processors don't have enough to do. This will average out to something less than spectacular looking.
So you can reach full turbo on all cores? Have you tried Prime95 or even LinPack?
People surprised about this should get a desktop, like a Mac Pro. This is nothing new. The thinner the body , the more likely the computer will throttle,to maintain temperatures. I suspect there would be even more complaints , if fans on MacBooks made more sound.
The issue is that the i9 MBP isn't performing as advertised in these tests. That's a completely different issue from a user choosing the right tool for the job.
Did Apple say that the processor wouldn’t be throttled? Don’t think they did, no.
It is logical that there is throttling for the burst frequency, but it is unacceptable that a there is throttling below the base frequency, which is defined as the frequency at which the CPU can run irrespective of the load.
If these test results are confirmed by others and Apple has no remedy in the short term, I can only have serious doubts that Apple can still be a trustworthy laptop supplier, who does not deceive the customer by marketing claims it cannot fulfil.
Apple would better invest more time in building the best qualitative laptop available iso. focusing on thinness, which is, for professional laptop users, not that important.
^This It’s only logical.
Oh please.
Try find someone who can sustained the max turbo boost speed that’s not a gaming laptop.
If all cores are at work, 4.8GHz the i9 will use around 120Watts. So you need a power adapter let’s say 320Watt? And amazing cooling to handle this speed continuously.
Also one problem what Louis Rossmann noted in previous generation macbooks the fans only starts to spin when computer hits 82 Celsius. And till 95 it runs in minium RPM and it will never get to full RPM before thermal shutdown.
So they could improve it much but it's more important to keep it quiet than last over 3 years before it burns itself completedly. Ofc this can be fixed by downloading fan control app but it is still over 6k laptop (7,5k in my country) at its highest you shouldn't need to download external app to give the laptop doubled lifespan.
The fan spinning only means it will be slower to cool it down, not the maximum cooling capabilities. This time is different.
People surprised about this should get a desktop, like a Mac Pro. This is nothing new. The thinner the body , the more likely the computer will throttle,to maintain temperatures. I suspect there would be even more complaints , if fans on MacBooks made more sound.
The issue is that the i9 MBP isn't performing as advertised in these tests. That's a completely different issue from a user choosing the right tool for the job.
Did Apple say that the processor wouldn’t be throttled? Don’t think they did, no.
It is logical that there is throttling for the burst frequency, but it is unacceptable that a there is throttling below the base frequency, which is defined as the frequency at which the CPU can run irrespective of the load.
If these test results are confirmed by others and Apple has no remedy in the short term, I can only have serious doubts that Apple can still be a trustworthy laptop supplier, who does not deceive the customer by marketing claims it cannot fulfil.
Apple would better invest more time in building the best qualitative laptop available iso. focusing on thinness, which is, for professional laptop users, not that important.
^This It’s only logical.
Oh please.
Try find someone who can sustained the max turbo boost speed that’s not a gaming laptop.
please read the post before.
Maybe it is you that should read his post again. The post I was replying to notes that the processor should be able to handle sustained base frequency loads.
People surprised about this should get a desktop, like a Mac Pro. This is nothing new. The thinner the body , the more likely the computer will throttle,to maintain temperatures. I suspect there would be even more complaints , if fans on MacBooks made more sound.
The issue is that the i9 MBP isn't performing as advertised in these tests. That's a completely different issue from a user choosing the right tool for the job.
Did Apple say that the processor wouldn’t be throttled? Don’t think they did, no.
It is logical that there is throttling for the burst frequency, but it is unacceptable that a there is throttling below the base frequency, which is defined as the frequency at which the CPU can run irrespective of the load.
If these test results are confirmed by others and Apple has no remedy in the short term, I can only have serious doubts that Apple can still be a trustworthy laptop supplier, who does not deceive the customer by marketing claims it cannot fulfil.
Apple would better invest more time in building the best qualitative laptop available iso. focusing on thinness, which is, for professional laptop users, not that important.
^This It’s only logical.
Oh please.
Try find someone who can sustained the max turbo boost speed that’s not a gaming laptop.
please read the post before.
Maybe it is you that should read his post again. The post I was replying to notes that the processor should be able to handle sustained base frequency loads.
"I can only have serious doubts that Apple can still be a trustworthy laptop supplier."
Sure. Meanwhile your "trustworthy suppliers" still throttles like hell, but I'm sure you know how to keep i9 throttle-free.
Apple simply shouldn't have offered the i9. Offering it was a bad design decision. Really upset about it, as having a high performance MacBook Pro was really needed. I don't believe other manufacturers have this issue, and even if they did why should Apple be able to get away with it. I just want a product that gives me the performance that I (would have) paid for.
So you can reach full turbo on all cores? Have you tried Prime95 or even LinPack?
Are you talking about during startup? If so - then yeah - while the CPU is cold it will burst pretty high (but not to the 4.1GHz max) even if you're hitting all cores... but then it settles back to ~3.3-3.7GHz as the max with all cores running (see my earlier post showing that it pegs right at 3.7GHz)... which is below the 4.1GHz that's stated.
The other thing with the scientific code is it initially does more on the first processor - then the others fill in and it stays pegged on all four until the end. So some of that initial burst is a bit because it's one core starting up for a moment.
So you can reach full turbo on all cores? Have you tried Prime95 or even LinPack?
Are you talking about during startup? If so - then yeah - while the CPU is cold it will burst pretty high (but not to the 4.1GHz max) even if you're hitting all cores... but then it settles back to ~3.3-3.7GHz as the max with all cores running (see my earlier post showing that it pegs right at 3.7GHz)... which is below the 4.1GHz that's stated.
The other thing with the scientific code is it initially does more on the first processor - then the others fill in and it stays pegged on all four until the end. So some of that initial burst is a bit because it's one core starting up for a moment.
Oh yeah, the 3.7GHz is just about right, that's the maximum all core turbo frequency for the 7920HQ.
I wonder what's the temperature and power consumption when you hit 3.7GHz then?
So you can reach full turbo on all cores? Have you tried Prime95 or even LinPack?
Since you asked for it - here is Intel's MKL version of Linpack running on 4 cores on my laptop. It would be easy to say "Look at that throttling!" but it's NOT throttling! That is just the algorithm doing it's iterations. Each one of the frequency dips corresponds to finishing an iteration... when there is less work to do.
You can also see some smaller dips in the middle of each iteration... further proving what I'm saying: that the frequency dips when the program dips in terms of instruction execution. Each iteration the problem size is actually getting smaller - which is why you start to see larger and larger dips as the run goes on.
And this is _Linpack_ - it is specially designed to _hammer_ processors.
So you can reach full turbo on all cores? Have you tried Prime95 or even LinPack?
Since you asked for it - here is Intel's MKL version of Linpack running on 4 cores on my laptop. It would be easy to say "Look at that throttling!" but it's NOT throttling! That is just the algorithm doing it's iterations. Each one of the frequency dips corresponds to finishing an iteration... when there is less work to do.
You can also see some smaller dips in the middle of each iteration... further proving what I'm saying: that the frequency dips when the program dips in terms of instruction execution. Each iteration the problem size is actually getting smaller - which is why you start to see larger and larger dips as the run goes on.
And this is _Linpack_ - it is specially designed to _hammer_ processors.
Comments
So they could improve it much but it's more important to keep it quiet than last over 3 years before it burns itself completedly. Ofc this can be fixed by downloading fan control app but it is still over 6k laptop (7,5k in my country) at its highest you shouldn't need to download external app to give the laptop doubled lifespan.
It's so ironic - I'm used to dealing with Apple not designing Macbook Pros to handle the GPUs, because they design the thermals for the base configuration. I always get the high end version, and I always have heating problems. So when I saw that Apple now has discrete GPUs in ALL versions of the 2015 Macbook Pro, I thought "FANTASTIC! Apple will finally have to design the thermals to accommodate a discrete GPU. And now this happens.
Did I mention the enormous volume of these fans drives me batty? I had to hack my Macbook Pro to keep the fans on all the time at a low level so that they wouldn't spike up to a high level whose I couldn't bear.
Well, at least the keyboard works now.
So the solution could be two halves, one, allowing the fans to ramp more quickly on the i9. Two, making its peak burst shorter in duration before settling at a more middling clock speed, so that it doesn't crater down past base.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Pro-13-2018-Touch-Bar-i5-Laptop-Review.316648.0.html
Oh please.
Try find someone who can sustained the max turbo boost speed that’s not a gaming laptop.
please read the post before.
Sure. Meanwhile your "trustworthy suppliers" still throttles like hell, but I'm sure you know how to keep i9 throttle-free.
The other thing with the scientific code is it initially does more on the first processor - then the others fill in and it stays pegged on all four until the end. So some of that initial burst is a bit because it's one core starting up for a moment.
I wonder what's the temperature and power consumption when you hit 3.7GHz then?
Since you asked for it - here is Intel's MKL version of Linpack running on 4 cores on my laptop. It would be easy to say "Look at that throttling!" but it's NOT throttling! That is just the algorithm doing it's iterations. Each one of the frequency dips corresponds to finishing an iteration... when there is less work to do.
You can also see some smaller dips in the middle of each iteration... further proving what I'm saying: that the frequency dips when the program dips in terms of instruction execution. Each iteration the problem size is actually getting smaller - which is why you start to see larger and larger dips as the run goes on.
And this is _Linpack_ - it is specially designed to _hammer_ processors.
It's there - right? In the top plot. Or do you mean wattage from the wall? I don't have a meter handy for that, unfortunately...