Tested: Thermal conditions in the 2018 i9 MacBook Pro dramatically hampering performance

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 153
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,258member
    friedmud said:
    DuhSesame said:
    I wonder what's the wattage in each single loop?

    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...
    Nah, not from the wall.  I mean the watts when you hit almost 100C and fully loaded 3.7GHz.  I'm sure 29W is idle consumption.
  • Reply 122 of 153
    seankillseankill Posts: 559member
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:

    seankill said:
    cropr said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    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.
    So we are saying Apple is of the same quality as the other suppliers? You justify a fault by deflecting. It’s the old, “every else does it.”  We pay much more for Apple produxets, I’d we wanted what everyone else is doing, we could buy it for much less. He simply notes that he may not be able to trust Apple anymore. He doesn’t at mention other suppliers, you are speculating that he trusts them. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 123 of 153
    friedmudfriedmud Posts: 164member
    DuhSesame said:
    Nah, not from the wall.  I mean the watts when you hit almost 100C and fully loaded 3.7GHz.  I'm sure 29W is idle consumption.

    Then - from the plot - it shows it at ~40W during most of the iterations... but it hits ~55W in the very beginning.
  • Reply 124 of 153
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,258member
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:

    seankill said:
    cropr said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    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.
    So we are saying Apple is of the same quality as the other suppliers? You justify a fault by deflecting. It’s the old, “every else does it.”  We pay much more for Apple produxets, I’d we wanted what everyone else is doing, we could buy it for much less. He simply notes that he may not be able to trust Apple anymore. He doesn’t at mention other suppliers, you are speculating that he trusts them. 
    Well, if you want to bring an i9 to maximum performance, you got to have the size of a gaming laptop to begin with.  I don't think many realized that in the first place, that they think "If we just make it thicker, it will be no problem" -- they did not realize how much "thicker" it needs to be to achieve that performance!  And if you do get a little thicker (or you can go all the way to Unibody), sure it will be better, but still throttles significantly, in the end you're not solving problem with it.

    So if your "trustworthy" is to build upon the throttling, do you really want to go that way?

    Also, if 10nm arrives next year, all of the power consumption and throttling will go down and probably back to normal too.
    edited July 2018 cgWerks
  • Reply 125 of 153
    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. 
    Why not, it is just one more choice. If you don't like you take the i7. For the real pro it is ok, when you needs sustained load, you are working on long computation on the desk. If you spend all that amount for the i9 version, you can also add 20-30 bucks for a good cooling pad to put under the macbook.
    A lot of people do it already, mostly in the PC world and most of these pads can be carried around also in case you need. 

    So why not? 
    I prefer a small computer when I go around, but powerful when I am on the desk (coupled with a more powerful workstation). I will never carry around one of those Alienware.....
  • Reply 126 of 153
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,258member
    friedmud said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Nah, not from the wall.  I mean the watts when you hit almost 100C and fully loaded 3.7GHz.  I'm sure 29W is idle consumption.

    Then - from the plot - it shows it at ~40W during most of the iterations... but it hits ~55W in the very beginning.
    40W running with LinPack?  From what I've gathered, even a 7700HQ runs more than that in Prime95 (That's less stressful than LinPack).  Or maybe you're having a good quality processor to begin with -- not every processors have the same power consumption. 

    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-7700HQ-Notebook-Processor.187975.0.html

    Here's the thing for LinPack though, that if you're running multiple programs in background, LinPack will not utilize it's fullest potential.  The best way to testing it out, is to restart and disable all of the applications in the background (leaving monitoring software open), then run the LinPack and everything works like planned.

    http://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/645392-how-run-linpack-stress-test-linx-ibt-properly-explanation-maybe-guide.html

    here's a post on how to.
  • Reply 127 of 153
    friedmudfriedmud Posts: 164member
    DuhSesame said:
    friedmud said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Nah, not from the wall.  I mean the watts when you hit almost 100C and fully loaded 3.7GHz.  I'm sure 29W is idle consumption.

    Then - from the plot - it shows it at ~40W during most of the iterations... but it hits ~55W in the very beginning.
    40W running with LinPack?  From what I've gathered, even a 7700HQ runs more than that in Prime95 (That's less stressful than LinPack).  Or maybe you're having a good quality processor to begin with -- not every processors have the same power consumption. 

    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-7700HQ-Notebook-Processor.187975.0.html

    Here's the thing for LinPack though, that if you're running multiple programs in background, LinPack will not utilize it's fullest potential.  The best way to testing it out, is to restart and disable all of the applications in the background (leaving monitoring software open), then run the LinPack and everything works like planned.

    http://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/645392-how-run-linpack-stress-test-linx-ibt-properly-explanation-maybe-guide.html

    here's a post on how to.

    I'm VERY well-versed in LINPACK - I would never even consider posting a score from OSX as it's pointless... but it does a well enough job at showing my point that instruction pressure matters in forcing the clock speed to stay high.  As soon as instruction pressure lets off even just a little bit the processor will down-clock to cool itself.

    That's exactly what we're seeing in the video posted here by AppleInsider... I think they're now doing a lot more testing so they'll be able to tell us more soon.  I posted a a couple of small C++ programs for them to try and I hope they do... because then there is no argument about what is happening.  If the clock speed won't stay at or above the base clock speed while running an infinite loop with floating point and integer arithmetic in it... THEN there is something wrong.  Otherwise, it's just the processor doing what it can to stay cool given the current instructions being fed to it.
  • Reply 128 of 153
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,258member
    friedmud said:
    DuhSesame said:
    friedmud said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Nah, not from the wall.  I mean the watts when you hit almost 100C and fully loaded 3.7GHz.  I'm sure 29W is idle consumption.

    Then - from the plot - it shows it at ~40W during most of the iterations... but it hits ~55W in the very beginning.
    40W running with LinPack?  From what I've gathered, even a 7700HQ runs more than that in Prime95 (That's less stressful than LinPack).  Or maybe you're having a good quality processor to begin with -- not every processors have the same power consumption. 

    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-7700HQ-Notebook-Processor.187975.0.html

    Here's the thing for LinPack though, that if you're running multiple programs in background, LinPack will not utilize it's fullest potential.  The best way to testing it out, is to restart and disable all of the applications in the background (leaving monitoring software open), then run the LinPack and everything works like planned.

    http://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/645392-how-run-linpack-stress-test-linx-ibt-properly-explanation-maybe-guide.html

    here's a post on how to.

    I'm VERY well-versed in LINPACK - I would never even consider posting a score from OSX as it's pointless... but it does a well enough job at showing my point that instruction pressure matters in forcing the clock speed to stay high.  As soon as instruction pressure lets off even just a little bit the processor will down-clock to cool itself.

    That's exactly what we're seeing in the video posted here by AppleInsider... I think they're now doing a lot more testing so they'll be able to tell us more soon.  I posted a a couple of small C++ programs for them to try and I hope they do... because then there is no argument about what is happening.  If the clock speed won't stay at or above the base clock speed while running an infinite loop with floating point and integer arithmetic in it... THEN there is something wrong.  Otherwise, it's just the processor doing what it can to stay cool given the current instructions being fed to it.
    Huh, well that's interesting.  It's not like I think you're biased, but I'd never thought a 7920HQ can run LinPack within 40~50 watts.  I’ve seen people complained a lot on notebook forums, on the reviews, that most of them exceeds the TDP.  Maybe you have a really good processor to begin with, that might explained.

    I wonder what happened if you try Prime95 then?
    edited July 2018
  • Reply 129 of 153
    friedmudfriedmud Posts: 164member
    Ok - I posted a Gist over here with a definitive test that will show if the new laptops are throttling: https://gist.github.com/friedmud/2dd0e9b08cf766c16b7cd95fbc74ceeb

    You can't really get any more instruction intensive than that!  (ok, well - I didn't bother targeting AVX which could possibly activate more pathways through the processor that aren't being exercised there to get an even larger thermal boost - but I doubt it would do much.  Could try enabling some optimization to see what that would do - but it might also just optimize out the loops completely!).

    You can see the results on my 2017 MBP with i7-7920HQ in the comments at the bottom... now we just need to get someone with the new MBPs to run the code as well.  I highly suspect that you won't see any HUGE thermal throttling...
    Player2
  • Reply 130 of 153
    Player2Player2 Posts: 3member
    I've got a Core i9 MBP on it's way here, and I'll be so relieved if the throttling can be mitigated through firmware updates. I think Friedmud is really onto something. I'd prioritize his tests over all others.
    friedmud
  • Reply 131 of 153
    Player2 said:
    I've got a Core i9 MBP on it's way here, and I'll be so relieved if the throttling can be mitigated through firmware updates. I think Friedmud is really onto something. I'd prioritize his tests over all others.
    He cannot solve the throttling problem, but you can by buying a cooling pad.
  • Reply 132 of 153
    elpopo64 said:
    Player2 said:
    I've got a Core i9 MBP on it's way here, and I'll be so relieved if the throttling can be mitigated through firmware updates. I think Friedmud is really onto something. I'd prioritize his tests over all others.
    He cannot solve the throttling problem, but you can by buying a cooling pad.
    Will probably do that. I understand he can't solve the problem, but a result for his test might give us a better understanding of *exactly* what's going on and what can and cannot be done to remedy it (on Apple's end).
    friedmud
  • Reply 133 of 153
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    orthorim said:
    martinmr said:
    I think it's time to ditch Intel and pack a pair of A11 bionic in a MacBook Pro. 12 cores sucking just the power of two iphones. that would be interesting product to use. Also, what's with Adobe and not optimising premiere for mac... it's just absurd. Most of creatives that pay for adobe suite use macs.
    A11 TDP: 5W
    i7 TDP: 45W

    So you could actually stick 9 A11s in a Macbook Pro. 54 cores anyone??

    I mean I'd probably go for a nice power savings and only use 4 A11s, that'd still be 24 cores. 

    It's going to happen, only a matter of time. I would say it will happen very, very soon.Like 1-2 years max. The ARM chips are on par with x86 while consuming way less power. They're definitely already working on it. I imagine they'll come out with a special A-series processor that's optimized for laptop use. I believe the current phone processors have some super-low power cores, maybe a laptop doesn't need as many as those. 
    The question is whether they would be 'apples to apples' when it comes to running the OS and doing real-life stuff. While I suspect Apple's architecture is more efficient, I kind of doubt it is 9 or 10 times more efficient. I kind of doubt the A11 is actually doing the same kind and intensity of 'work'. If I'm wrong, then yes, this change could be really exciting (aside from loss of x86 compatibility, which a lot of people use).

    friedmud said:
    ... Here's my issue with the current set of tests - we don't know what the instruction intensity looks like for these applications.  Intel's procs are REALLY good at throttling down if there is even the slightest bit of slack in instruction intensity.  It will show as dips in the frequency - but it's not because of thermal throttling... it's because the processor has a moment to "breathe"... so it does.  Absolutely the tiniest stall in the instruction pipeline (due to waiting on file-io or any other resource) will instantly bring the clock speed crashing down.
    This is why we used Cinebench. We know that there are no breaks in instruction intensity.
    If it is true that the YouTube'r fixed it by putting it in a freezer (not something I'd recommend), then it was the thermals, not the app.

    tmay said:
    Of course, each user's workload and workflow varies, so I would advise potential buyers to wait a bit until their chosen applications are updated for both the hardware and Mojave, and then find some savvy tester to confirm performance, one way or another.
    That's the real key here. Even throttled, it might be better for some situations.... like actually running a bunch of apps and VMs, or where you can fully utilize the 6 cores (like a rendering engine where each core gets an 'engine').

    Interesting article... this line also caught my attention: "They also differ in terms of manufacturing process (14nm++ vs. 14 nm+), and the new process already includes updated micro code against Spectre v2."
     and
    "Apple usually removed the TDP limit for Intel processors, so the temperature was the only limiting factor. This is the case here as well, and we can see consumption values of almost 50 Watts."
    and
    "All in all, the new MacBook Pro 13 is faster than the old previous 2017 model, but some Windows devices are faster with supposedly slower CPUs."

    I doubt the Spectre fix has too much of a performance hit, but it is interesting to note. But, if it's faster than the 2017, that's an improvement even if it isn't gaining the same advantage of other Windows laptop (which is kind of irrelevant if you need to stay on macOS.

    Apple simply shouldn't have offered the i9. Offering it was a bad design decision.
    Yeah, if the design can't handle it, kind of silly to offer it. Initially, I thought the i9 was the 6-core chip, but seeing the i7 is also 6-core... what's the point of some supposed potential power you can't use. The 6 cores (instead of 4) is the big deal to me, not the i9.

    DuhSesame said:
    Well, if you want to bring an i9 to maximum performance, you got to have the size of a gaming laptop to begin with.  I don't think many realized that in the first place, that they think "If we just make it thicker, it will be no problem" -- they did not realize how much "thicker" it needs to be to achieve that performance!  And if you do get a little thicker (or you can go all the way to Unibody), sure it will be better, but still throttles significantly, in the end you're not solving problem with it.
    There is no way other than thickness? But yeah, going back to the unibody would be find by me, especially for a high-end version of the 15".

    elpopo64 said:
    Why not, it is just one more choice. If you don't like you take the i7. For the real pro it is ok, when you needs sustained load, you are working on long computation on the desk. If you spend all that amount for the i9 version, you can also add 20-30 bucks for a good cooling pad to put under the macbook.
    A lot of people do it already, mostly in the PC world and most of these pads can be carried around also in case you need. 
    True... now that we know. But, this probably ticks people off who just go to the Apple Store and pick maxed out configs.
  • Reply 134 of 153
    LiljomLiljom Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Apple fans don't buy for performance. The brand is the most important. It was obvious before the first test, that the thin body won't be able to handle the heat of an i9. You can buy a real i9 laptop with 32 GB RAM, 6 TB SSD and GTX 1070! for about half price of most expensive MBP 15 config (4TB SSD, no GTX at all). Of course heavier, but you just can not expect a thin machine Wich handles i9. 
  • Reply 135 of 153
    Liljom said:
    Apple fans don't buy for performance. The brand is the most important. It was obvious before the first test, that the thin body won't be able to handle the heat of an i9. You can buy a real i9 laptop with 32 GB RAM, 6 TB SSD and GTX 1070! for about half price of most expensive MBP 15 config (4TB SSD, no GTX at all). Of course heavier, but you just can not expect a thin machine Wich handles i9. 
    That it's not a laptop, it's a transportable workstation, but not as powerful as a workstation. It's a gaming machine for who can only afford one machine.
    More than 4 Kg to transport, big machine. For what? Video is ridiculous. Detached from the wall does not survive a couple of hours.
    There are no professionals using that, just gamers and youtubers.
  • Reply 136 of 153
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,762member
    KITA said:

    The benchmarks have come under fire from critics, with them saying that there are "breaks" to smooth out the performance. However, that does not appear to be the case.

    While there are pauses in the test, they are done at the end of each test, not in the middle. So, individual tests are performed under full load, with no cool-down period during the test to keep processor speeds low.
    Geekbench 4 uses 2 second pauses are after each workload. Each workload only lasts for, in most cases, ~1 second and there are 50 workloads in total (25 for single core / 25 for multi core).

    Here's an example in Geekbench 4 multicore:

    MacBook Pro 15 (i9-8950HK) - 22,522
    Gigabyte Aero 15X (i7-8750H) -  19,073

    And here's the sustained performance in Cinebench R15 CPU for the Aero 15X:


    That's an average of ~1,100 for the Aero 15X.

    Meanwhile, the MacBook Pro, as per your testing, both the i7 and i9 only scored ~900 sustained.

    Clearly the Geekbench 4 results are completely misleading as even the best case scenario for the i9 MacBook Pro fell short of the i7 Aero 15X's worst run.
    Apple is hardly the only vendor dealing with i9 thermal conditions, and like we said, Premiere performs far better with Nvidia GPU silicon than AMD Radeon gear which explains most of the Dell ripping through the test. 
    Dave Lee used the same Gigabyte Aero 15X (i7 + GTX 1070 MaxQ) discussed above, not the Dell XPS 15 (i9 + GTX 1050Ti MaxQ). Although, I imagine the Dell might have also faired quite well.
    The most obvious solution right now is for Apple alter the peak speed of the processor by adjusting the power that the chip gets. Ironically, slowing the peak speed of the processor may allow it to finish tasks quicker, as it will slow down less to keep the CPU cool.
    On that topic, someone has undervolted a Core i9 Dell XPS 15 with some excellent results. Clearly the Core i9 is not an easy CPU for 4~4.5 lbs laptops to handle, but it might be possible to get some more performance out of it after all.

    Great work on the article! Lots of key points covered. Looking forward to more!





    "Don't forget, CB15 benchmark is based on Cinema 4D R15. Maxon is now on R19, so four gens old. It's probably missing a good number of code improvements vs the R19 software being used today. People complain when my GTX1080 is old, well this is a lot worse and people say nothing"

    "That's like firing a stone from Portugal into the Atlantic and saying wherever it hits is 'average' distance to the US. Optimization is all over the place, no one software piece will show it accurately, which is why real-world tests are important."

    Lies, damned lies, and benchmarks
    cornchip
  • Reply 137 of 153
    tzmmtztzmmtz Posts: 27member
  • Reply 138 of 153
    Our IT department just cancelled the order for the new i9 MacBook Pro's to see how this plays out. Guess I'll have to wait and see what happens with all of this. :-(
  • Reply 139 of 153
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    pascal007 said:
    friedmud said:
    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.
    If it was only the CPU taking a breather, as you say, the task would still be performed faster. Yet, as Lee showed, the task is performed faster (or as fast) using a i7 CPU compared to the i9, so there is a real performance problem when heat-stressed.
    There is overhead costs in using more cores and each core adds less efficiency especially for premiere.  Puget did an analysis in 2015 where you saw premiere working 96% efficient for 4 cores and dropping to 25% efficient after 8 cores for complex timelines and 35% efficient after 4 cores for simple timelines.  Meaning you generate 100% of additional heat for 25%-35% improved mpeg2 encoding speed.  There were similar breakpoints for other tasks like exporting 4K to 1080p h.264.

    Simply exporting 4K H.264 say only 40% efficiency after 5 cores.

    https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-698/

    Puget has a lot of interesting articles for those folks making themselves an editing workstation.

    "What is surprising is simply how consistent the results were between the different codecs and resolutions. The amount of time it took in seconds to export each was vastly different, but the speedup per core was very similar. From our data, it appears that there is little to no benefit to having more than four or five cores with a single high-end GPU when exporting to 1080p. In fact, we even saw a drop in performance when we added a second physical CPU when using the RED 4K footage.

    Adding a second GPU helped a bit and made it so that it was beneficial to have roughly six CPU cores instead of just four or five. With dual GPUs, however, we saw three instances where having two physical CPUs was worse than just having one (H.264 4K, CineForm 4K, and RED 4K)."

    https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-2015-Multi-Core-Performance-Update1-806/

    The more recent tests are here:

    https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-2017-Intel-Core-i7-7700K-i5-7600K-Performance-884/

    For folks that think Intel isn't doing anything:

    Starting with the Core i7 8700K, we saw huge performance gains compared to the Core i7 7700K. A 31% gain when rendering previews and a 36% gain when exporting is a staggering increase in performance. Even warp stabilize was on average 24% faster than the Core i7 7700K! Live playback didn't improve much, but this makes the Core i7 8700K a terrific CPU for those on a budget. There are certainly higher performing CPUs available like the Core i7 7820X, Core i9 7900X, and Core i9 7940X, but considering the price point of the Core i7 8700K this is a very impressive result.

    https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-1-2-CPU-Performance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1047/

    Testing this sort of stuff in macOS is going to be annoying but the same general behavior should be expected.  Windows allows you to lock tasks to cores but macOS treats them as hints and you have to do it programmatically.

    It strikes me that the new i9 MBP isn't geared toward video editors but those developers who have been whining about running a dozen VMs at the same time.  Typically you want to reserve 2 cores for the host OS and that sure doesn't leave a lot for VMs even when counting logical cores (aka hyper threading).  Most of the time, at least during the testing I've seen, the load across all VMs aren't terrible all at the same time as some machines end up computational bound while others are IO bound.  

    That should allow the i9 MBP to handle more VMs than the i7 without ending up in thermal overload and throttling down.

    As someone who actually travels with a MBP and does coding in the field (usually in a desert in a conex or trailer) I still prefer the current MBP design and wouldn't go with a huge 7-10 lb laptop (like the Dell 7720 or Alienware).  Anytime I need one of those I'm better off FedExing a real workstation (or iMac) in a pelican case and bringing a Honda generator.  

    cgWerks
  • Reply 140 of 153
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    Liljom said:
    Apple fans don't buy for performance. The brand is the most important. It was obvious before the first test, that the thin body won't be able to handle the heat of an i9. You can buy a real i9 laptop with 32 GB RAM, 6 TB SSD and GTX 1070! for about half price of most expensive MBP 15 config (4TB SSD, no GTX at all). Of course heavier, but you just can not expect a thin machine Wich handles i9. 
    Well, Apple fans used to buy for performance... maybe that has changed.
    (Though, I'm not so sure about that as a generalization, because while many of those other laptops/desktops have parts like i9, or a 6TB SSD, or 32GB of RAM, they often aren't really 'apples to apples' when you get down into the details. For example, a typical SSD in some PC might not be the same as the faster SSD in a Mac.)

    But, what is most important isn't the brand, but the OS and eco-system. That why some of us are so concerned when we see what we think are cracks or direction changes in that.

    tzmmtz said:
    That was a pretty stupid article, though, even if it turns out to be correct. They did nothing to show the problems... it was just all conjecture and saying Apple is probably more reputable than a YouTube'r. My favorite line was, 'He even told me that some of the tasks his company does “would not have been possible” five years ago.' Um, we're comparing 2017 to 2018 here, not 5 years ago. Heh.

    Again, if accurate.... if Lee gained performance back by putting the laptop in a freezer, then the problem is heat-related, not optimization related. The software almost certainly ALSO needs to be optimized, but that might not matter.

    nht said:
    "What is surprising is simply how consistent the results were between the different codecs and resolutions. The amount of time it took in seconds to export each was vastly different, but the speedup per core was very similar. From our data, it appears that there is little to no benefit to having more than four or five cores with a single high-end GPU when exporting to 1080p. In fact, we even saw a drop in performance when we added a second physical CPU when using the RED 4K footage.

    Adding a second GPU helped a bit and made it so that it was beneficial to have roughly six CPU cores instead of just four or five. With dual GPUs, however, we saw three instances where having two physical CPUs was worse than just having one (H.264 4K, CineForm 4K, and RED 4K)."

    Yeah, performance on multiple cores is quite software dependent, so I'm sure that plays a huge role... but there is still that 'put it in the freezer' issue. So, maybe it's a mix of both.

    nht said:
    It strikes me that the new i9 MBP isn't geared toward video editors but those developers who have been whining about running a dozen VMs at the same time.  Typically you want to reserve 2 cores for the host OS and that sure doesn't leave a lot for VMs even when counting logical cores (aka hyper threading).  Most of the time, at least during the testing I've seen, the load across all VMs aren't terrible all at the same time as some machines end up computational bound while others are IO bound.  
    Yeah, or if you're just running a few higher-demand apps instead of just measuring 1 app. But, the VM thing is big for a lot of people.
Sign In or Register to comment.