I have a 32G Ram i7 15” MBP coming tomorrow. Do you see the same throttling and thermal issues in this model 15” i7 as we are seeing in the i9?! I am reading a lot about tempture and overheating. But it is unclear which models are experiencing these issues. Are all the the new MPB models in the 13 & 15 inch along with the configurations being affected by throttling? Should I return my MBP after I get it tomorrow? I think we all need more clarification on this issue.
I have a 32G Ram i7 15” MBP coming tomorrow. Do you see the same throttling and thermal issues in this model 15” i7 as we are seeing in the i9?! I am reading a lot about tempture and overheating. But it is unclear which models are experiencing these issues. Are all the the new MPB models in the 13 & 15 inch along with the configurations being affected by throttling? Should I return my MBP after I get it tomorrow? I think we all need more clarification on this issue.
There isn’t thorough testing yet. In the preliminary YouTube videos I’ve seen (including from AI) the criticism has been about the i9 CPU and throttling. More testing will come but the issue so far AFAIK involves heat, fan use and throttling on the i9.
I have a 32G Ram i7 15” MBP coming tomorrow. Do you see the same throttling and thermal issues in this model 15” i7 as we are seeing in the i9?! I am reading a lot about tempture and overheating. But it is unclear which models are experiencing these issues. Are all the the new MPB models in the 13 & 15 inch along with the configurations being affected by throttling? Should I return my MBP after I get it tomorrow? I think we all need more clarification on this issue.
It seems like when testing the 15" MPB; everyone is hyper-focused on the i9. Aside from this review, which gives the i7 a plus in some of the benchmark testings. I always buy AppleCare, but it doesn't make sense to me that anyone purchasing this 2018 MPB has to deal with the thought of the computer being recalled. Unless there is testing across the board, buyer beware. I think it is very frustrating.
I’m curious whether the synthetic benchmarks that hit the wall on the thermal envelope represent actual use cases for a portable computer. Is the guy sitting next to you in business class sporting a brand spanking new MacBook Pro driving the thing into the thresholds? I’ve done some very processing intensive digital signal processing applications and you’re talking rack mounted single board computers and array processors and water cooling. Any brand laptop in this application would be a slingshot in in a gunfight. It’s always been about having the right tool for the right job. Nothing has changed.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error. The benchmarks apply to that particular run on that particular machine. Because the numbers don't match yours, doesn't mean that they're wrong. That's the nature of benchmarking.
If every machine got the same reading every time, then there wouldn't be a range of benchmarks listed in the Geekbench database.
I think there is an error in this article. It says the graphics was provided by a Intel UHD 630 chipset. But every configuration of the 15 inch MacBook Pro has Radeon Pro graphics. The entry level configuration has a Radeon Pro 555X. So this computer you were testing has a dedicated graphics card. But you do not mention this nor include it in the test results. What's up with that?
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error. The benchmarks apply to that particular run on that particular machine. Because the numbers don't match yours, doesn't mean that they're wrong. That's the nature of benchmarking.
If every machine got the same reading every time, then there wouldn't be a range of benchmarks listed in the Geekbench database.
Not true about your margin of error claim. You quote 22,179 in one paragraph and then 20,179 shortly thereafter for the same model. That looks like one of those figures is a typo... but which one? You quote 11,797 for the top-of-the-line 2017 15-inch MBP, which is ridiculously low.
Some people know how to obtain meaningful (i.e., accurate) benchmarks and adhere to the necessary procedures to obtain them (when they care). That's why benchmarks (such as Geekbench) I run and report are consistently very near the top of the reported range, not just involving Macs or in the present situation but for all platforms and going back decades.
I'm curious to know what happens when you have your iPhone next to the Mac and then trigger Siri using "Hey Siri". I assume it is triggered on both devices and both will try to process the request?
Try out the 2018 15” MacBook Pro and identitical to my 2017 MacBook Pro in feel and touch! I thought Apple would make a change back to the previous keyboard. No such luck!
I'm curious to know what happens when you have your iPhone next to the Mac and then trigger Siri using "Hey Siri". I assume it is triggered on both devices and both will try to process the request?
When you make a request to Siri then all your Apple kit in the vicinity have a quick chat with each other to decide who should pick up the request. How they decide is one of life’s mysteries.
If I have my phone in my hand then the phone handles it. If the phone is on the desk then the HomePod gets to answer, occasionally deferring to the phone.
This is sweet. Very, very sweet. Sort of the Bugatti or Maserati of laptops....
Or, as AI described its potential audience in the closing comments of the video, it's for "Students, gamers, or video editors" (Excuse the paraphrase).
For [serious] gamers and/or video editors, this laptop (like a Maserati for sports car enthusiasts) is impressive and a good fit because they want/need performance and are willing and able to pay for it.
But: "Students"? Bullshit. Unless they are more interested in
gaming or impressing other students than taking notes or typing a term
paper...
For mainstream professionals (Lawyers, Accountants, Business executives, etc...), it is over kill. A waste of money. They could do their job equally well on a laptop with far less power and costing far, far less.
And, for general users who need a laptop for general web browsing, social media, etc. it, like a Maserati, is a waste of money.
So, Apple, for the 90-95% of us who are not serious gamers or video editors, What have you done for me lately?
Your $329 iPad is sweet, but it lacks a cursor for regular laptop type work. So?
This MBP mostly feeds the Apple trolls who claim Apple simply feeds its cult looking to impress with its elitism....
[Qualifier: Yes, I am aware that Apple seems to be working on plugging the hole it has left with 'the common man'. But the hole is clearly still there and I look to the future for Apple to plug that hole.]
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error. The benchmarks apply to that particular run on that particular machine. Because the numbers don't match yours, doesn't mean that they're wrong. That's the nature of benchmarking.
If every machine got the same reading every time, then there wouldn't be a range of benchmarks listed in the Geekbench database.
Not true about your margin of error claim. You quote 22,179 in one paragraph and then 20,179 shortly thereafter for the same model. That looks like one of those figures is a typo... but which one? You quote 11,797 for the top-of-the-line 2017 15-inch MBP, which is ridiculously low.
Some people know how to obtain meaningful (i.e., accurate) benchmarks and adhere to the necessary procedures to obtain them (when they care). That's why benchmarks (such as Geekbench) I run and report are consistently very near the top of the reported range, not just involving Macs or in the present situation but for all platforms and going back decades.
"Very near the top of the reported range" doesn't mean accurate, it just means very near the top of the reported range. Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error. The benchmarks apply to that particular run on that particular machine. Because the numbers don't match yours, doesn't mean that they're wrong. That's the nature of benchmarking.
If every machine got the same reading every time, then there wouldn't be a range of benchmarks listed in the Geekbench database.
Not true about your margin of error claim. You quote 22,179 in one paragraph and then 20,179 shortly thereafter for the same model. That looks like one of those figures is a typo... but which one? You quote 11,797 for the top-of-the-line 2017 15-inch MBP, which is ridiculously low.
Some people know how to obtain meaningful (i.e., accurate) benchmarks and adhere to the necessary procedures to obtain them (when they care). That's why benchmarks (such as Geekbench) I run and report are consistently very near the top of the reported range, not just involving Macs or in the present situation but for all platforms and going back decades.
Since tests are conducted in the real world, conditions vary, especially with room temperature, which is notable for creating the delta t necessary for heat transfer. The cooler the test conditions, the larger the delta t, the better the heat transfer, the better the result, all else being equal, which might not be true either.
For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.
That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.
Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:
You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.
"In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."
No, my focus was intentional.
I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
Since I'm unaware of what your actual workload / workflow is that requires a laptop computer that doesn't throttle, and if the MBP doesn't fit your performance needs, why not just buy the Dell and be done with it?
Otherwise, why not have a bit of patience and wait for Mojave and whatever application updates that will follow to get a reasonable idea of how these MBP and applications will actually work together. Everything up until now seems quite premature for decision making, other than to wait for confirmation one way or another.
I don’t think he cares about any of that. For some reason (maybe he’s paid? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) he comes here to point out how Macs are crap. Have you ever gone to a Huawai forum to point out how their build quality sucks monkey balls? I certainly haven’t and can’t imagine under what circumstances I’d ever do that.
Although this time he (or Notebookcheck.com) is right about the cooling. I knew the 8th gen will be a lot hard to cool due to its nature, and a redesign might helped a lot (but not completely). I didn't see the any change in thermal systems though.
I don't know what Apple is thinking this time, maybe just following their "schedule", they knew is bad but still choose not to bothering it anyway, or they're being confident that "everything works out just fine?"
10nm next year might change the whole issue, and that's another year.
But wait, didn’t everybody say they ought to just toss the latest CPUs in these things and gosh it’s so easy why is Apple so lazy why don’t they just toss parts in there?
"In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."
You can't patch your way out of lack of physical cooling - everything from the heatsink, the cooling paste, the air conducts and the size/capacity of the fans. The enclosure is simply not scaled for the processor, GPU and support electronics placed inside.
In Windows throttling can be adjusted through software.
You can of course to a certain extent make adjustments, but if it start throttling below rated base speed for average workloads such as a longer Xcode compile, then the thermal design is flawed.
Thermal design is flexible due to the amount of fan use. The frequency of use of the fan can be adjusted through software. I’ve had several Windows laptops/desktops and most of them were noisy due to continual fan noise. Loud fan noise is not part of Apple’s design philosophy but the company could put that aside with the new MacBook Pro and give the user the option for more fan cooling.
Yup. I have a work Dell laptop that constantly blows its fans, even when idle and untouched. SSD drive, too. I have no idea why it sounds like a hair dryer all day, but I know I dislike it.
The MacBook Pro enclosure is a perfect example of skating where the puck is supposed to be, but then having the other player (Intel) making a bad pass. By all expectations, Intel should have been down to a smaller process by now, which would have made the MacBook Pro enclosure sufficient. What makes this more annoying is that Apple did the same thing with the trash can Mac Pro and the GPU cooling. Sometimes you can be too smart for your own good.
What I want to know is this: for heavy multi-core loads is the slowest new MacBook Pro as fast or faster than the fastest MacBook Pro? In other words does the 2.2 Ghz processor beat the 2.9 Ghz processor because the 2.2 Ghz doesn't need to throttle but the 2.9 Ghz does? Of course, in short, heavy loads, the 2.9 Ghz processor is still going to win. Overall, though, which processor is the best for the money for a given workload? Thanks in advance if the folks at AppleInsider write an article about this.
Thermal throttling in a laptop is primarily done to protect the lifespan of the battery. That's the part that is the most vulnerable to degrading when regularly exposed to high temperatures, thus the only laptops that typically allow higher end clock speeds on a regular basis are gaming laptops where the buyer doesn't really care about battery life. Those heat up like crazy, so there obviously isn't any real attempt at having adequate cooling in those designs. They just know the customers aren't going to be using the laptop unplugged that often.
Comments
In the preliminary YouTube videos I’ve seen (including from AI) the criticism has been about the i9 CPU and throttling.
More testing will come but the issue so far AFAIK involves heat, fan use and throttling on the i9.
Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
You quote 11,797 for the top-of-the-line 2017 15-inch MBP, which is ridiculously low.
Some people know how to obtain meaningful (i.e., accurate) benchmarks and adhere to the necessary procedures to obtain them (when they care). That's why benchmarks (such as Geekbench) I run and report are consistently very near the top of the reported range, not just involving Macs or in the present situation but for all platforms and going back decades.
If I have my phone in my hand then the phone handles it. If the phone is on the desk then the HomePod gets to answer, occasionally deferring to the phone.
I'll talk to Andrew about it.
Yup. I have a work Dell laptop that constantly blows its fans, even when idle and untouched. SSD drive, too. I have no idea why it sounds like a hair dryer all day, but I know I dislike it.
What I want to know is this: for heavy multi-core loads is the slowest new MacBook Pro as fast or faster than the fastest MacBook Pro? In other words does the 2.2 Ghz processor beat the 2.9 Ghz processor because the 2.2 Ghz doesn't need to throttle but the 2.9 Ghz does? Of course, in short, heavy loads, the 2.9 Ghz processor is still going to win. Overall, though, which processor is the best for the money for a given workload? Thanks in advance if the folks at AppleInsider write an article about this.
adjective
requiring or using great effort or exertion: the government made strenuous efforts to upgrade the quality of the teaching profession.