Review: The 2018 MacBook Pro with i9 processor is the fastest laptop Apple has ever made, ...

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 83
    jameskatt2jameskatt2 Posts: 720member
    Just look at how thick, loud and heavy real gaming laptops are. These laptops take full potential of the CPU and GPU. 
    As the CPUs and GPUs become more powerful, Apple needs to get away from THIN and make the MacBooks THICK BEASTS again.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 42 of 83
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    Just look at how thick, loud and heavy real gaming laptops are. These laptops take full potential of the CPU and GPU. 
    As the CPUs and GPUs become more powerful, Apple needs to get away from THIN and make the MacBooks THICK BEASTS again.
    I guarantee you that this will never happen.
    dreyfus2bb-15pscooter63lamboaudi4williamlondonstompyroundaboutnowchia
  • Reply 43 of 83
    There are two ways to improve the thermals of the MacBook Pro i9:

    1) Purchase a replacement bottom case cover (so you can replace the original back if you need repairs). Then mod the bottom case with holes to allow improved ventilation. And add thermal tape to bridge the gap between the bottom case and CPU/GPU heat sink so that the entire case can act like a heat sink.  Here is the mod: https://medium.com/be-expert-101/my-macbook-is-too-hot-89afa1a0079a

    2) Develop a replacement bottom case cover that is thick enough that it can hold extra batteries and fans and air vents to cool the MacBook Pro well enough to run at full speed. This would be like the proposed OWC DEC expansion case for the MacBook Pros. https://blog.macsales.com/39345-owc-makes-macbooks-pro-again-with-game-changing-product

    These two mods would allow the MacBook Pro i7 to i9 to be the laptops they should have been in performance.
    Whatever happened to the OWC DEC?
  • Reply 44 of 83
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    Just look at how thick, loud and heavy real gaming laptops are. These laptops take full potential of the CPU and GPU. 
    As the CPUs and GPUs become more powerful, Apple needs to get away from THIN and make the MacBooks THICK BEASTS again.
    Sales figures for these things do not seem to be too impressive (otherwise the revenue share of other OEMs would not be what it is). For the few people who want these things there is more than enough choice. MacBooks have never been "THICK BEASTS", even the PowerBooks before them weren't. You would have to go back to the previous millennium to find such a failure. It is not that I do not want other's to get what they want, I just do not see how Apple could do anything different enough to justify the expense to serve a market that small. I have literally not seen anybody lugging around a mobile workstation in years - and I visit a lot of companies.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 45 of 83
    Now where is the magic word HBR3 in these reviews?
  • Reply 46 of 83
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    Now where is the magic word HBR3 in these reviews?
    What for?

    The monitor support is the same as the previous generation with USB-C alt mode DP1.2. Two 5K displays, one per side, or two 4K displays per side. A herald of possible HBR3 expansion would be two 5K displays per side -- but we don't have that despite Titan Ridge's inclusion as the Thunderbolt 3 controller.
    edited July 2018 bb-15
  • Reply 47 of 83
    Intel hosed them? You guys are really drinking that mac koolaid these days. Windows gaming thin/light laptops are presently cooling an 8750h/1070MQ under heavy loads. The 8750h in my 17.9 MM thick (4.1lbs) windows laptop will happily kick back 1200+ scores in cinebench until you tire of pressing the button. This is what happens when the heatsink is properly designed for the processor it will be cooling. If MSI/Gigabyte/Razer can do it Apple sure as shit can.

    All they needed to do was take a bit of that engineering genius they claim to have and redesign the heatsink, but they didn't bother because they knew they didn't have to; look at everyone jumping to defend using a 2 year old thermal design which was maxed out last year on brand new hotter CPU's. You are paying the highest premium for this hardware and getting the worst performance.
    edited July 2018 williamlondonelectrosoft
  • Reply 48 of 83
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    Intel hosed them? You guys are really drinking that mac koolaid these days. Windows gaming thin/light laptops are presently cooling an 8750h/1070MQ under heavy loads. The 8750h in my 17.9 MM thick (4.1lbs) windows laptop will happily kick back 1200+ scores in cinebench until you tire of pressing the button. This is what happens when the heatsink is properly designed for the processor it will be cooling. If MSI/Gigabyte/Razer can do it Apple sure as shit can.

    All they needed to do was take a bit of that engineering genius they claim to have and redesign the heatsink, but they didn't bother because they knew they didn't have to; look at everyone jumping to defend using a 2 year old thermal design which was maxed out last year on brand new hotter CPU's. You are paying the highest premium for this hardware and getting the worst performance.
    You misinterpret the statement. Three years ago, when Apple was designing the enclosure, Intel promised that 10nm (and all that entails) would be delivered two years ago. We're still on 14nm, with all that entails including the higher heat.

    This isn't an intentional hose-job, but it is one nonetheless. Apple designed the thermals for that progression in the 2016, based on Intel's road map. I don't think a heatsink redesign in this chassis is going to help, given the airflow.

    Thus, the "could be better."
    edited July 2018 pscooter63roundaboutnow
  • Reply 49 of 83
    seankillseankill Posts: 556member
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.

    I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better. 

    I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness. 

    Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard. 
    Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.

    The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. 
    As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it. 

    Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics. 
    OK, do you want a 9 pound laptop? For what? Why not use a desktop instead? I’ve got to believe the market for those who need desktop or workstation class performance in a portable device is very small. Apple doesn’t cater to extremely niche markets.
    I think you need to get beyond the jumping to conclusions and extremes, and actually read my statements. I am noting using a chassis the size of the 2015s; stop using extremes. Everyone on this forum can't get past the 2018 design or 9 pound laptops. Good lord, its not an either/or. The 2015 model was 4.5 pounds and thicker. With the shrinking of the components, there would be plenty of room to improve the thermals rather than make the device thinner to grab headlines. GRANTED, it wouldn't allow the full use of the i9 but it would improve things as the PC would have more room to move a larger volume of air over a larger surface area to transfer the heat. See if you can read this statement without replying: "9 pound laptops."

    bb-15 said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.

    I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better. 

    I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness. 

    Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard. 
    Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.

    The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. 
    As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it. 

    Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics. 
    1. Macs are designed to be quiet out of the box. 
    One reason is that MacBooks can be used to record/perform music. Apple sells Logic Pro X, which is recording software. It is preferable with music recording and performance to have PCs which are quiet. Macs + Logic deliver that (which I’ve used in my own recording studio).
    - The gaming laptops which are being used as competition for the MacBook Pro are almost always loud. Those gaming laptops are not replacements for the MacBook Pro. 
    2. If the new MacBook Pro i9 (the fastest MacBook of all time) is a moderate class laptop, then all MacBooks would be moderate class laptops. And that might be your argument. 
    If so, what is missed is that MacBooks are not only quieter than gaming laptops, they are lighter than many of gaming laptops and the chassis of MacBooks run cooler under load compared with several gaming laptops. 
    ** Bottom line; raw speed is not the only important feature with a pro level laptop. Apple puts together a feature package in several ways which appeals to many professional computer users. 

    I agree the macbook is quiet. I am not a music recorder but I would take a guess that simply recording audio is not very taxing but maybe I am wrong. The act of compressing and editing is probably pretty taxing but are you recording at that point? In this case, you could easily throttle the processor in these special cases to meet the needs (noise level) while still letting the beast out when it is needed. Plus, you assume more airflow results in more noise. This is true all else equal but with a large chassis, it allows other options to improve air flow without making much of a difference in sound (same fan RPM but larger fan to move a larger volume). 

    2. I would hope the "newest macbook" is the fastest macbook, not sure why that is an important point. So, if they put the i9 in the 12" Macbook, would that inherently make it equal to the 15" i9 Macbook or a "high-end" laptop? No.  There are other considerations. The GPU is upper-low end even if it could operate at 100% within this chassis. 

    I still don't understand why we continue to compare it to gaming laptops? Again, not saying it needs to be a gaming laptop. But why artificially limit the computer more than necessary rather than sticking with a plenty light, plenty portable 2015 chassis? (HINT: headlines) If you need more portability, the Air and Macbook are for that market. I don't see the point in trying to turn the Pro into the Air from a chassis standpoint.

    Still a great laptop and one of the best on the market but being critical of Apple is the only way to ensure continued improvement. 


    To anyone replying: Stop with the extremes. Its not an either/or argument......




  • Reply 50 of 83
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    Just look at how thick, loud and heavy real gaming laptops are. These laptops take full potential of the CPU and GPU. 
    As the CPUs and GPUs become more powerful, Apple needs to get away from THIN and make the MacBooks THICK BEASTS again.
    Clearly you should be using a desktop instead.
  • Reply 51 of 83
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 857member
    Just look at how thick, loud and heavy real gaming laptops are. These laptops take full potential of the CPU and GPU. 
    As the CPUs and GPUs become more powerful, Apple needs to get away from THIN and make the MacBooks THICK BEASTS again.
    Clearly you should be using a desktop instead.
    For anyone that needs a powerful luggable... you can always get an iMac carrying case and carry your iMac :open_mouth: 

    williamlondonchia
  • Reply 52 of 83
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 857member
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.

    I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better. 

    I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness. 

    Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard. 
    Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.

    The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. 
    As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it. 

    Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics. 
    OK, do you want a 9 pound laptop? For what? Why not use a desktop instead? I’ve got to believe the market for those who need desktop or workstation class performance in a portable device is very small. Apple doesn’t cater to extremely niche markets.
    I think you need to get beyond the jumping to conclusions and extremes, and actually read my statements. I am noting using a chassis the size of the 2015s; stop using extremes. Everyone on this forum can't get past the 2018 design or 9 pound laptops. Good lord, its not an either/or. The 2015 model was 4.5 pounds and thicker. With the shrinking of the components, there would be plenty of room to improve the thermals rather than make the device thinner to grab headlines. GRANTED, it wouldn't allow the full use of the i9 but it would improve things as the PC would have more room to move a larger volume of air over a larger surface area to transfer the heat. See if you can read this statement without replying: "9 pound laptops."

    bb-15 said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.

    I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better. 

    I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness. 

    Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard. 
    Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.

    The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. 
    As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it. 

    Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics. 
    1. Macs are designed to be quiet out of the box. 
    One reason is that MacBooks can be used to record/perform music. Apple sells Logic Pro X, which is recording software. It is preferable with music recording and performance to have PCs which are quiet. Macs + Logic deliver that (which I’ve used in my own recording studio).
    - The gaming laptops which are being used as competition for the MacBook Pro are almost always loud. Those gaming laptops are not replacements for the MacBook Pro. 
    2. If the new MacBook Pro i9 (the fastest MacBook of all time) is a moderate class laptop, then all MacBooks would be moderate class laptops. And that might be your argument. 
    If so, what is missed is that MacBooks are not only quieter than gaming laptops, they are lighter than many of gaming laptops and the chassis of MacBooks run cooler under load compared with several gaming laptops. 
    ** Bottom line; raw speed is not the only important feature with a pro level laptop. Apple puts together a feature package in several ways which appeals to many professional computer users. 

    I agree the macbook is quiet. I am not a music recorder but I would take a guess that simply recording audio is not very taxing but maybe I am wrong. The act of compressing and editing is probably pretty taxing but are you recording at that point? In this case, you could easily throttle the processor in these special cases to meet the needs (noise level) while still letting the beast out when it is needed. Plus, you assume more airflow results in more noise. This is true all else equal but with a large chassis, it allows other options to improve air flow without making much of a difference in sound (same fan RPM but larger fan to move a larger volume). 

    2. I would hope the "newest macbook" is the fastest macbook, not sure why that is an important point. So, if they put the i9 in the 12" Macbook, would that inherently make it equal to the 15" i9 Macbook or a "high-end" laptop? No.  There are other considerations. The GPU is upper-low end even if it could operate at 100% within this chassis. 

    I still don't understand why we continue to compare it to gaming laptops? Again, not saying it needs to be a gaming laptop. But why artificially limit the computer more than necessary rather than sticking with a plenty light, plenty portable 2015 chassis? (HINT: headlines) If you need more portability, the Air and Macbook are for that market. I don't see the point in trying to turn the Pro into the Air from a chassis standpoint.

    Still a great laptop and one of the best on the market but being critical of Apple is the only way to ensure continued improvement. 


    To anyone replying: Stop with the extremes. Its not an either/or argument......




    Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much.  What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop.  So what i9 is closest to your vision?

    You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference.  The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation).  The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part.  Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc.   A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane.   The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).

    Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.

    Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state.  If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
    edited July 2018 Rayz2016macxpress
  • Reply 53 of 83
    oodlumoodlum Posts: 40member
    OK, do you want a 9 pound laptop? For what? Why not use a desktop instead? I’ve got to believe the market for those who need desktop or workstation class performance in a portable device is very small. Apple doesn’t cater to extremely niche markets.
    Why do you keep saying a 9 pound laptop? Total strawman. The 2011 MB Pro 17" was an absolute tank and weighed 6.6 pounds. It was also a total workhorse and I had no problem putting up with the weight when travelling to work overseas for a couple of weeks at a time. That's a fairly common professional use case. There are plenty of others. I'm sure the latest slim ones outperform my old beast but imagine the grunt they could put into that form factor with today's tech. FWIW that's what a "pro" laptop should be in my opinion. But yes I agree it's just a marketing term now (unfortunately) and Apple will never put that genie back in the bottle.


    williamlondonelectrosoft
  • Reply 54 of 83
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 857member
    oodlum said:
    OK, do you want a 9 pound laptop? For what? Why not use a desktop instead? I’ve got to believe the market for those who need desktop or workstation class performance in a portable device is very small. Apple doesn’t cater to extremely niche markets.
    Why do you keep saying a 9 pound laptop? Total strawman. The 2011 MB Pro 17" was an absolute tank and weighed 6.6 pounds. It was also a total workhorse and I had no problem putting up with the weight when travelling to work overseas for a couple of weeks at a time. That's a fairly common professional use case. There are plenty of others. I'm sure the latest slim ones outperform my old beast but imagine the grunt they could put into that form factor with today's tech. FWIW that's what a "pro" laptop should be in my opinion. But yes I agree it's just a marketing term now (unfortunately) and Apple will never put that genie back in the bottle.


    Probably saying 9-pound laptop BECAUSE that is what we have examples of the "i9 done right".  Apple is one of many vendors and if it can be done as you said, I would expect there to be at least one reasonable example.  Understand though the reason for 'the beastly' size was more to do with holding a DVD drive, hard drive and being able to wrap around a 17 screen.  If you did the same size and filled it with heatsink and fans it would be heavier.   The i9 would run considerably hotter than the CPU put in that computer.   It is considerably less powerful than the 13" base model MacBook 2018.  I am wondering if your wish for a 17" MacBook is tainting your view a little.  Yes, a 17" model would be nice for some, but it was canceled because of market demand.

    I also doubt it would be a "use case" for video production 'for weeks at a time', since the raw footage of a shoot over any length of time is considerable -- in that I would think a properly outfitted production truck would be what you need (with sizeable storage, backup storage, more powerful computers).
    edited July 2018 williamlondon
  • Reply 55 of 83
    zoetmb said:
    [...] As for the improvement in specs of the new MBP's versus last year's or even the late-2016, which I have, it doesn't seem like much of a practical difference for most uses (except for the types who need their amps to go to "11"). 
    I have a maxed-out 2016. I don't care about specs, I care about getting work done. I'm considering the 2018.

    Differences of a minute or two here and there don't seem like much, until you accumulate a bunch of them when trying to hit a deadline. An extra minute per operation adds up when that operation is something you do fifty times a day.

    I've also just started using the new-ish Soundbase function in Pro Tools that should really speed up my work. Unfortunately it just doesn't work worth a damn with 16GB of RAM. It's the only example I've come across so far that really suffers from the 16GB limit, but it suffers in a really serious way. Like to the point of sometimes crashing. The potential for improved efficiency from being able to use Soundbase reliably is enough to warrant considering the new machine just for the added RAM.
  • Reply 56 of 83
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,826member
    The OpenCL graphics test in Geekbench 4 gave us an improvement with the added X, going from 42,990 to 52,499 in OpenCL. Metal was dramatically improved, hitting 60,149 with the 560X, versus 38,701 with the 560 -- but a fair amount of this gain is from software improvement.”

    Software improvement?  This increase looks significant. It can’t be just the VRAM, it looks severely optimised for Metal 🙂 (+22% vs +55%). Could Apple be delivering 1st-party HW/SW integration via AMD’s semi-custom service?
  • Reply 57 of 83

    Soli said:
    seankill said:
    Soli said:
    seankill said:
    Soli said:
    1) Thanks for doing a comparison of MagSafe v USB-C. That lines up with my anecdotal experience. I still can't understand why after decades of bellyaching about Apple using proprietary, unlicensed connection options that when Apple finally adopts one because it is inherently better that people still complain.

    I would like to note that this will get buried in this review. May I suggest that you do a separate article detailing both MagSafe designs, USB-C (with Apple and 3rd-party cables), and the deep barrel connector they used prior. I'd also like to proffer that you use a pull force gauge so you can get accurate measurements that can be put into a chart.

    2) Is the keyboard heating up because of the i9 under max load and/or the RAM? IOW, if you got the entry-level 15" MBP but with 32 GiB DDR4 RAM would you still have that same issue (i.e.: an issue for the entire 2018 15" MBP line in any configuration), mostly an issue with the Intel i9, or an issue with the i9 under load for extended periods of time (like when running benchmarks)?

    3) Were you able to do any battery tests to see if the 2018 15" MBP with the larger battery was indeed inline with the 2017 15" MBP under the same load? I can imagine that under load the 2018 models may reduce their time more than the 2017 with the smaller battery, but if you can get more work done then it could offset that loss.

    4) Since they kept the weight the same YoY while increasing the battery capacity (which one report shows that it's both larger and heavier than last year's battery—so it's not lighter battery tech) I assume they milled the top chassis even more to lose the weight and make the space. Since this makes up the structure of the MBP did you find this to be less durable, dissipate heat worse/better since it also acts as a heatsink, or any other potential problems with removing several ounces of aluminium from the frame? If not, have they really been wasting all metal and adding unneeded weight all these years, or do you think that they've engineered something stronger (like they did with the iPhone S series over the iPhone 6 series after Bendghazi)?
    I have an issue with the USB-C vs Magsafe argument here. I am not saying I know the answer; however, the article notes that it takes less force when pulled relatively straight out. But when someone is walking and catches the cable of a laptop, the force more often than not is not relatively straight out. My experiences have been the cable is pulled at a sharper angle than 30-40 degrees from the insertion angle on the horizontal plane, not to mention its usually pulled down at an angle sharper than 30 degrees. The magsafe, in my experience, de-couples even easier to forces applied perpendicular to laptop chassis in both planes, especially the vertical plane(almost too easy sometimes). Does USB-C reflect that case? I would imagine it is more likely to bind (as it goes into the device) and pull the laptop. Also, say it dis-engages easily, does this perpendicular pressure wear on the I/O port? The engaging/disengaging of the magsafe at any angle doesn't bother the port. I just can't imagine a port that is specifically designed for break away will not outperform the USB-C that is not specifically designed for it.

    Curious on the feedback. Will be interesting to see how the accidental damage reports play out over the next couple of years.
    I'm sure force requirements for USB-C increase as you increase the angle, whereas MagSafe it may even be less tension because it can act like a fulcrum at one end to pull the magnet off the other. That's why I'd like to see a chart.

    As they state in the article, if your cable is still going to be plugged in despite the all-day battery that didn't exist back before MagSafe and it will be a tripping hazard that could  potentially pull your MBP to the floor there are plenty of 3rd-party options in which to choose from.

    To be fair, the all day battery life is for web browsing and word processing.
    To be fair to be fair, I believe that's how Mac notebooks batteries have been rated for about 2 decades. To be fair to be fair to be fair, I think Apple has made their testing procedure more difficult twice over so that the times more accurate represent the average user and further away from best case scenario.


    1. Testing conducted by Apple in June 2018 using preproduction 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i5-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with 8GB of RAM and 512GB SSD; and preproduction 2.6GHz 6-core Intel Core i7-based 15-inch MacBook Pro systems with 16GB of RAM and 512GB SSD. Testing conducted by Apple in May 2017 using preproduction 2.3GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with 8GB of RAM and 1TB SSD. The wireless web test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing 25 popular websites with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%. The iTunes movie playback test measures battery life by playing back HD 1080p content with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%. The standby test measures battery life by allowing a system, connected to a wireless network and signed in to an iCloud account, to enter standby mode with Safari and Mail applications launched and all system settings left at default. Battery life varies by use and configuration. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information.
    When I first got this 2016 MBPwTB I was impressed with how much longer the battery lasts than the one in my 2009 did.

    In the last couple weeks I've been doing some more demanding work with it, and have been surprised by how much difference there is in battery life between typical, casual computing versus making it sweat a little. With casual use I get about 8 hours. With more demanding use it drops to around 3 hours.
    Soli
  • Reply 58 of 83
    seankillseankill Posts: 556member
    bkkcanuck said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.

    I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better. 

    I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness. 

    Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard. 
    Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.

    The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. 
    As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it. 

    Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics. 
    OK, do you want a 9 pound laptop? For what? Why not use a desktop instead? I’ve got to believe the market for those who need desktop or workstation class performance in a portable device is very small. Apple doesn’t cater to extremely niche markets.
    I think you need to get beyond the jumping to conclusions and extremes, and actually read my statements. I am noting using a chassis the size of the 2015s; stop using extremes. Everyone on this forum can't get past the 2018 design or 9 pound laptops. Good lord, its not an either/or. The 2015 model was 4.5 pounds and thicker. With the shrinking of the components, there would be plenty of room to improve the thermals rather than make the device thinner to grab headlines. GRANTED, it wouldn't allow the full use of the i9 but it would improve things as the PC would have more room to move a larger volume of air over a larger surface area to transfer the heat. See if you can read this statement without replying: "9 pound laptops."

    bb-15 said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.

    I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better. 

    I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness. 

    Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard. 
    Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.

    The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. 
    As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it. 

    Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics. 
    1. Macs are designed to be quiet out of the box. 
    One reason is that MacBooks can be used to record/perform music. Apple sells Logic Pro X, which is recording software. It is preferable with music recording and performance to have PCs which are quiet. Macs + Logic deliver that (which I’ve used in my own recording studio).
    - The gaming laptops which are being used as competition for the MacBook Pro are almost always loud. Those gaming laptops are not replacements for the MacBook Pro. 
    2. If the new MacBook Pro i9 (the fastest MacBook of all time) is a moderate class laptop, then all MacBooks would be moderate class laptops. And that might be your argument. 
    If so, what is missed is that MacBooks are not only quieter than gaming laptops, they are lighter than many of gaming laptops and the chassis of MacBooks run cooler under load compared with several gaming laptops. 
    ** Bottom line; raw speed is not the only important feature with a pro level laptop. Apple puts together a feature package in several ways which appeals to many professional computer users. 

    I agree the macbook is quiet. I am not a music recorder but I would take a guess that simply recording audio is not very taxing but maybe I am wrong. The act of compressing and editing is probably pretty taxing but are you recording at that point? In this case, you could easily throttle the processor in these special cases to meet the needs (noise level) while still letting the beast out when it is needed. Plus, you assume more airflow results in more noise. This is true all else equal but with a large chassis, it allows other options to improve air flow without making much of a difference in sound (same fan RPM but larger fan to move a larger volume). 

    2. I would hope the "newest macbook" is the fastest macbook, not sure why that is an important point. So, if they put the i9 in the 12" Macbook, would that inherently make it equal to the 15" i9 Macbook or a "high-end" laptop? No.  There are other considerations. The GPU is upper-low end even if it could operate at 100% within this chassis. 

    I still don't understand why we continue to compare it to gaming laptops? Again, not saying it needs to be a gaming laptop. But why artificially limit the computer more than necessary rather than sticking with a plenty light, plenty portable 2015 chassis? (HINT: headlines) If you need more portability, the Air and Macbook are for that market. I don't see the point in trying to turn the Pro into the Air from a chassis standpoint.

    Still a great laptop and one of the best on the market but being critical of Apple is the only way to ensure continued improvement. 


    To anyone replying: Stop with the extremes. Its not an either/or argument......




    Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much.  What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop.  So what i9 is closest to your vision?

    You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference.  The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation).  The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part.  Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc.   A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane.   The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).

    Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.

    Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state.  If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
    This processor is rather new, you will have to give the other vendors time to get their products to market. As an engineer, if you look at how  Apple/Dell and the gamer laptops  are designed and say: “it has to be one of these two options”, surely you will be looking for a job soon. its not impossible to design a laptop that is slightly thicker... Again, to be clear, the target is not max performance but better performance. 

    You use use the word “smidgen”, I don’t care for the term, it is subjective, uninformative and useless. On this scale, we need to be talking percentages or relative terms, not absolute. 1mm doesn’t sound like much unless it is in comparison to 1mm, for example. In this case, it is 0.61 vs 0.71 inches, or said another way, the 2015 MacBook is about 16% thicker than the 2018 MacBook. Given that the majority of that space could be used for battery and the cooling system, it will make a difference. Only calculations or simulations can quantify the difference.  On the battery note(you are correct from what I remember), the 2015 had a 99 whr battery (under 100 for planes), surely they could’ve continued with that size. Under a load, the battery life is not very good anyway; you’ll need to plug in regardless to get much done. On battery, just has options to artificially limit the processor, I do this with my MacBook shine running windows to boost battery life. But when plugged it, let her run! Good on the USB-C, gives a reason to retain MagSafe.

    You know what they say about assumptions, right? You know what they say about opinions, right? Don’t assume, and opinions are worthless.

    Here is what we know: a larger case will improve the thermals. To what degree? That must be calculated. As a side effect, it would also allow room to work in other useful ports, say HDMI? 


    That said, I still think this is one of the best laptops on the market, I am just holding out for the 10nm Intels now. Although, who knows when that will happen? July 2020?

    edited July 2018
  • Reply 59 of 83
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    bkkcanuck said:
    Just look at how thick, loud and heavy real gaming laptops are. These laptops take full potential of the CPU and GPU. 
    As the CPUs and GPUs become more powerful, Apple needs to get away from THIN and make the MacBooks THICK BEASTS again.
    Clearly you should be using a desktop instead.
    For anyone that needs a powerful luggable... you can always get an iMac carrying case and carry your iMac :open_mouth: 

    This i9 MBP isn’t a powerful enough luggable? What have you tried to do with it that you couldn’t?
  • Reply 60 of 83
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    seankill said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.

    I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better. 

    I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness. 

    Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard. 
    Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.

    The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. 
    As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it. 

    Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics. 
    OK, do you want a 9 pound laptop? For what? Why not use a desktop instead? I’ve got to believe the market for those who need desktop or workstation class performance in a portable device is very small. Apple doesn’t cater to extremely niche markets.
    I think you need to get beyond the jumping to conclusions and extremes, and actually read my statements. I am noting using a chassis the size of the 2015s; stop using extremes. Everyone on this forum can't get past the 2018 design or 9 pound laptops. Good lord, its not an either/or. The 2015 model was 4.5 pounds and thicker. With the shrinking of the components, there would be plenty of room to improve the thermals rather than make the device thinner to grab headlines. GRANTED, it wouldn't allow the full use of the i9 but it would improve things as the PC would have more room to move a larger volume of air over a larger surface area to transfer the heat. See if you can read this statement without replying: "9 pound laptops."

    bb-15 said:
    seankill said:
    seankill said:
    I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.

    I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better. 

    I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness. 

    Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard. 
    Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.

    The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. 
    As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it. 

    Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics. 
    1. Macs are designed to be quiet out of the box. 
    One reason is that MacBooks can be used to record/perform music. Apple sells Logic Pro X, which is recording software. It is preferable with music recording and performance to have PCs which are quiet. Macs + Logic deliver that (which I’ve used in my own recording studio).
    - The gaming laptops which are being used as competition for the MacBook Pro are almost always loud. Those gaming laptops are not replacements for the MacBook Pro. 
    2. If the new MacBook Pro i9 (the fastest MacBook of all time) is a moderate class laptop, then all MacBooks would be moderate class laptops. And that might be your argument. 
    If so, what is missed is that MacBooks are not only quieter than gaming laptops, they are lighter than many of gaming laptops and the chassis of MacBooks run cooler under load compared with several gaming laptops. 
    ** Bottom line; raw speed is not the only important feature with a pro level laptop. Apple puts together a feature package in several ways which appeals to many professional computer users. 

    I agree the macbook is quiet. I am not a music recorder but I would take a guess that simply recording audio is not very taxing but maybe I am wrong. The act of compressing and editing is probably pretty taxing but are you recording at that point? In this case, you could easily throttle the processor in these special cases to meet the needs (noise level) while still letting the beast out when it is needed. Plus, you assume more airflow results in more noise. This is true all else equal but with a large chassis, it allows other options to improve air flow without making much of a difference in sound (same fan RPM but larger fan to move a larger volume). 

    2. I would hope the "newest macbook" is the fastest macbook, not sure why that is an important point. So, if they put the i9 in the 12" Macbook, would that inherently make it equal to the 15" i9 Macbook or a "high-end" laptop? No.  There are other considerations. The GPU is upper-low end even if it could operate at 100% within this chassis. 

    I still don't understand why we continue to compare it to gaming laptops? Again, not saying it needs to be a gaming laptop. But why artificially limit the computer more than necessary rather than sticking with a plenty light, plenty portable 2015 chassis? (HINT: headlines) If you need more portability, the Air and Macbook are for that market. I don't see the point in trying to turn the Pro into the Air from a chassis standpoint.

    Still a great laptop and one of the best on the market but being critical of Apple is the only way to ensure continued improvement. 


    To anyone replying: Stop with the extremes. Its not an either/or argument......




    Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much.  What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop.  So what i9 is closest to your vision?

    You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference.  The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation).  The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part.  Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc.   A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane.   The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).

    Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.

    Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state.  If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.



    That said, I still think this is one of the best laptops on the market, I am just holding out for the 10nm Intels now. Although, who knows when that will happen? July 2020?

    Assuming Intel makes its latest guess on when it will ship the line, yes.
Sign In or Register to comment.