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

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 153
    jdiamondjdiamond Posts: 122member
    Guys, I have a real theory about what happened here - bear with me.

    Did you notice that even before the 2018 Macbook Pro was released, all the Wintel companies launched laptops with the Core i9.  (All of which had proper thermals).
    I don't think Apple EVER PLANNED to offer this upgrade.  But maybe they felt if they didn't, the Macbook Pro would look really out of date compared to all the competition.  But as you see, Apple wasn't ready with a new design - this is the SAME DESIGN from 2016, and it isn't capable of handling a Core i9.  For all I know, the next big redesign won't even have an Intel chip.

    I speculate that Apple made a very last minute decision to just drop in 6-core processors just so they could "keep up" with existing Wintel laptops and not look bad.  If they were caught off guard, they might have really rushed the process.  Maybe Intel even told them it was just a drop in replacement.

    So that's my theory - we would normally have seen ordinary quad core CPUs if the other vendors like Dell, Gigabyte, etc, hadn't all launched i9 based laptops that were all 4 pounds and had 4K screens, etc....
  • Reply 142 of 153
    cgWerks said:
    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.
    Then this guy will never have problems as it is just the casual buyer who only has the money for the top, but don't need it.

    For the unibody: this model is still unibody in the construction. You may mean to go before the unibody, but still the thickness was just a bit more and (I still have them stored around my office) they are not better in the thermal part. The power was much lower.... And I do not compare with the plastic ones before.

    The real solution is just better ventilation. It is only connected to thickness by the fact that you can increase fans sizes and apertures with a thicker construction. But you can do the same with an external cooling pad. The advantage of the last solution is that you increase the thickness only when you need it and maintain high portability.

    I am going to order an i9 model but I would like to see some tests with a cooling pad or different cooling conditions (like the macbook not just standing flat on a wood or plastic desk), but these days you only found amateurish testers, youtubers (like the guy that put the computer in the freezer, or the one who compares the 2017-2018 by using only 2 cores and concludes the 2017 is faster), no one doing the right testing to understand the extend of the problem.
  • Reply 143 of 153
    teedeeteedee Posts: 10member
    elpopo64 said:
    cgWerks said:
    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.
    Then this guy will never have problems as it is just the casual buyer who only has the money for the top, but don't need it.

    For the unibody: this model is still unibody in the construction. You may mean to go before the unibody, but still the thickness was just a bit more and (I still have them stored around my office) they are not better in the thermal part. The power was much lower.... And I do not compare with the plastic ones before.

    The real solution is just better ventilation. It is only connected to thickness by the fact that you can increase fans sizes and apertures with a thicker construction. But you can do the same with an external cooling pad. The advantage of the last solution is that you increase the thickness only when you need it and maintain high portability.

    I am going to order an i9 model but I would like to see some tests with a cooling pad or different cooling conditions (like the macbook not just standing flat on a wood or plastic desk), but these days you only found amateurish testers, youtubers (like the guy that put the computer in the freezer, or the one who compares the 2017-2018 by using only 2 cores and concludes the 2017 is faster), no one doing the right testing to understand the extend of the problem.

    I’ve got the i9 model and my friend got the i7 higher end model. I did some quick test as I was considering refunding my i9 for an i7. The test isn’t very comprehensive as it’s for my own reference, but it gives a rough idea of i7 vs i9 CPU performance.

    ========

    Cinebench CPU Test:
    i7 Turbo Boost Enabled with force Max Fan: 921
    i7 Turbo Boost Disabled: 835
    i9 Turbo Boost Enabled with force Max Fan: 935
    i9 Turbo Boost Disabled: 945

    On the i9 the thermal throttling is making it difficult to even maintain its base clock speed of 2.9Ghz due to it keep boosting to approx 3.7-4Ghz right after cooling, before severely throttling again after 1-2 seconds. I figured that if I disable Turbo Boost, I can make it maintain at 2.9Ghz as it doesn’t boost and overheat. True enough, it maintained at 2.9Ghz at approx 80 degrees celcius. In fact as seen from the above results, the i9 without turbo boost performs better than with turbo boost enabled.

    ========

    HandBrake 4K Encoding Test:
    Both the MacBooks are throttling to about the same GHz range. The estimated time on both MacBooks are very similar, with the i9 having slightly better estimate time (~1-2mins out of 28mins). I did not time the entire encoding as I didn’t have the patience to wait for 28 minutes. However from my observation after performing this test several times, it shows that the i9 is very slightly faster than the i7 model.

    I also performed this test with turbo boost disabled expecting better estimated time. However the estimated time remained the same...

    ========

    After these quick test, I feel more assured that the i9 does not perform worse than the i7. As a result, I will not be exchanging my i9 to i7. It seems that Apple can improve the performance of i9 by simply updating the firmware to manually lower the max turbo boost speed so that the CPU doesn’t get excessively hot and throttle. 

    The only disappointing thing is that I was expecting the handbrake encoding speed to be much better. My base mid 2012 rMBP with i7 quad core has estimated encoding time of 50-60 mins. Intel’s latest hexacore CPU is only performing 2X better than a 6 year old quad core. I was expecting more...
    M.PaulCezanne
  • Reply 144 of 153
    I want to thank AI and all of you for your detailed and well informed comments.  However, I’m now experiencing analysis paralysis and can’t decide which to buy.

    It seems like the decision is easier for those who were on the fence about needing the i9.  I fall into that category. However, now I can’t decide if I should get the 15 or max out a 13.  Probably thinking too much.

    🤔
  • Reply 145 of 153
    Intel® Power Gadget's Mac download was removed from Intel's website recently. Many think this was in response to the i9 throttling controversy. However, it is now back online and updated to version 3.5.3.
  • Reply 146 of 153
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,311member
    I want to thank AI and all of you for your detailed and well informed comments.  However, I’m now experiencing analysis paralysis and can’t decide which to buy.

    It seems like the decision is easier for those who were on the fence about needing the i9.  I fall into that category. However, now I can’t decide if I should get the 15 or max out a 13.  Probably thinking too much.

    ߤ䦬t;/div>
    Watch this video. If you aren't using Premiere Pro, then consider the i9 over the i7;
     


    John Poole's twitter feed

    https://twitter.com/jfpoole

    geekbench blog

    https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/

    Bottom line.

    Premiere Pro uses both CPU and GPU, which is why it throttles so badly, and compared to FCP or DaVinci Resolve, is an awful implementation by Adobe for i9 MBP.

    Had people waited until there was more real world benchmark's, I doubt there would have been such a fuss.
    edited July 2018 cgWerks
  • Reply 147 of 153
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    elpopo64 said:
    For the unibody: this model is still unibody in the construction. You may mean to go before the unibody, but still the thickness was just a bit more and (I still have them stored around my office) they are not better in the thermal part. The power was much lower.... And I do not compare with the plastic ones before.

    The real solution is just better ventilation. It is only connected to thickness by the fact that you can increase fans sizes and apertures with a thicker construction. But you can do the same with an external cooling pad. The advantage of the last solution is that you increase the thickness only when you need it and maintain high portability.

    I am going to order an i9 model but I would like to see some tests with a cooling pad or different cooling conditions (like the macbook not just standing flat on a wood or plastic desk), but these days you only found amateurish testers, youtubers (like the guy that put the computer in the freezer, or the one who compares the 2017-2018 by using only 2 cores and concludes the 2017 is faster), no one doing the right testing to understand the extend of the problem.
    Yeah, what I meant is that I was fine with MBP sizes back in the mid-2000s as a pro user. I like the smaller sizes, now, but not if it means giving up too much. Maybe I'm wrong in that there wasn't more cooling going on with those machines... but I would think there would have been.

    Yes, I've used stands to lift the laptop off surfaces and have tried blowing fans over/under them. I even built a stand with several magnetic bearing fans (super-quiet) blowing under it constantly.

    I'm pretty sure the YouTuber knows it's bad to run it in the freezer, but he did that to prove it was thermal throttling.
  • Reply 148 of 153
    It’s all due to the new silicone membrane in the keyboards.
      :D
  • Reply 149 of 153
    tmay said:
    I want to thank AI and all of you for your detailed and well informed comments.  However, I’m now experiencing analysis paralysis and can’t decide which to buy.

    It seems like the decision is easier for those who were on the fence about needing the i9.  I fall into that category. However, now I can’t decide if I should get the 15 or max out a 13.  Probably thinking too much.

    ߤ䦬t;/div>
    Watch this video. If you aren't using Premiere Pro, then consider the i9 over the i7;
     


    John Poole's twitter feed

    https://twitter.com/jfpoole

    geekbench blog

    https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/

    Bottom line.

    Premiere Pro uses both CPU and GPU, which is why it throttles so badly, and compared to FCP or DaVinci Resolve, is an awful implementation by Adobe for i9 MBP.

    Had people waited until there was more real world benchmark's, I doubt there would have been such a fuss.
    Thanks for the link. Jonathan’s point actually supports my thinking.  All this testing is mainly quantifying what we already know: laptops have thermal limits and the i9 is (probably) almost always faster than the i7 - maybe only slightly sometimes and maybe it depends on the GPU in use, but over time the differences might be substantial enough to justify the relatively small extra investment in the i9.  Maybe not. Heavy pro users take your pick, but this “controversy” makes it easier for those of us who didn’t really need the i9 to begin with, but might have considered it if it crushed the i7 convincingly in every way possible.

    Maybe this is a question for a 13” discussion, but as an occasional pro app user, my decision now becomes base 15 or maxed 13. Yes, the obvious difference is screen size, but the 13 really is more portable and easier to write with.  There are technical differences too with the hardware - just not sure how much they impact real-world performance because I haven’t seen anyone putting the maxed 13 through the same battery of tests.

  • Reply 150 of 153
    ikirikir Posts: 127member
    It is a non-issue, i9 gets hot it is normal, Apple will release an uptake firmware which will fans run faster/before and probably most of the issue will be gone.
  • Reply 151 of 153
    ikirikir Posts: 127member
    emoeller said:
    We now have more than one data point, and this is very disappointing news.    My new MBP has the i9 and I will need to decide if I need to return and wait until next year when Intel will hopefully have their laptop chips out (and Apple utilizes the new DRAM spec).  For me $5k+ is a lot of money, but more importantly I needed that extra computational capability for field 3d renderings of block models.
    I cancelled my order...
    No need to panic, the machine is incredible fast anyway. Apple will update firmware for faster/sooner fans. Or just order the i7 6-core version which is very powerful.
  • Reply 152 of 153
    DHFDHF Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    I returned mine even after the software update; it did not resolve the issue. With VMWare, I could not get the device to stay below 85c under decent load while running a few other apps. I could see the slowing of performance as I routinely run other OSs in VMs which kept the CPU load up under normal use. If the VM performed any load for longer than 30 secs, I could visually see the throttling impact the applications. After all, the 32Gig of ram and CPU is meant to give us the horsepower to do this. I also struggled to get anything above 60% utilization and when the power draw was high, it spiked and held 95-100c which was worse than my i7. I appreciate Lee drawing attention to this. It is time Apple made pro machines that provided the performance the components are capable of..
    edited August 2018 cgWerks
Sign In or Register to comment.