Tested: Thermal throttling and performance in the eight-core 2019 MacBook Pro

Comments

• Reply 1 of 49

  lkrupp Posts: 10,482member

  May 26, 2019 9:13PM

  And here’s another trope you see being plastered around by know-it-alls, that Apple’s thermals are atrocious and that their clock speeds never come up to the advertised rates. You see these posts on MacRumors, 9to5Mac, and others. No links, no proof, no tests, just questionable or outright disinformation posted as fact. AI tests the new machines and they are performing better than expected and not dropping below the advertised speed. The enclosure is the same so what’s different. Again the die has already been cast and the anonymous experts are trashing the thermals of the new models. 
  

  edited May 2019
• Reply 2 of 49

  JustSomeGuy1 Posts: 306member

  May 26, 2019 10:07PM

  @AI, thank you, that was very useful, and quicker than I expected.

  
  

  @Lkrupp, maybe some trolls are doing that, but it's still true that the current design is a poor choice if you're optimizing for performance. (It's a different story if you're optimizing for weight, battery life, etc.) It's also true that in the last couple of years, for the first time ever, other companies have been putting up legitimate contenders against Apple for the combined weight-batterylife-performance-style crown. In my opinion, Apple hasn't done too well on that front recently, though the latest macbook helps a lot. If I could get MacOS on another brand's hardware, I would seriously consider it, and I never felt that way previously. Of course I still won't, because Windows.
  

  
• Reply 3 of 49

  KITA Posts: 384member

  May 26, 2019 10:10PM

  lkrupp said:

  And here’s another trope you see being plastered around by know-it-alls, that Apple’s thermals are atrocious and that their clock speeds never come up to the advertised rates. You see these posts on MacRumors, 9to5Mac, and others. No links, no proof, no tests, just questionable or outright disinformation posted as fact. AI tests the new machines and they are performing better than expected and not dropping below the advertised speed. Then enclosure is the same so what’s different. Again the die has already been cast and the anonymous experts are trashing the thermals of the new models. 
  

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.
  
  

  9980HK: On Coffee Lake architecture based processor for big and heavy laptops. Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores) that support HyperThreading. Manufactured in an improved 14nm process (14nm++). Offers an unlocked multiplier that allows overclocking of the CPU.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
  

  
  Based on the tests above it sits between 2.9 GHz and 3.0 GHz.

  edited May 2019
• Reply 4 of 49

  doozydozen Posts: 537member

  May 26, 2019 10:29PM

  Wasn’t expecting that. 
• Reply 5 of 49

  doozydozen Posts: 537member

  May 26, 2019 10:33PM

  KITA said:

  lkrupp said:

  And here’s another trope you see being plastered around by know-it-alls, that Apple’s thermals are atrocious and that their clock speeds never come up to the advertised rates. You see these posts on MacRumors, 9to5Mac, and others. No links, no proof, no tests, just questionable or outright disinformation posted as fact. AI tests the new machines and they are performing better than expected and not dropping below the advertised speed. Then enclosure is the same so what’s different. Again the die has already been cast and the anonymous experts are trashing the thermals of the new models. 
  

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.
  
  

  9980HK: On Coffee Lake architecture based processor for big and heavy laptops. Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores) that support HyperThreading. Manufactured in an improved 14nm process (14nm++). Offers an unlocked multiplier that allows overclocking of the CPU.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
  

  
  Based on the tests above it sits between 2.9 GHz and 3.0 GHz.

  What?...
  Apple ADVERTISES exactly 2.4GHz. SMH

  
• Reply 6 of 49

  martinxyz Posts: 92member

  May 26, 2019 10:34PM

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.

  I read that slightly differently: "Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores)". I read that as base speed is 2.4 GHz, and can go to 5GHz for a single core, or 4.2 GHz for 8 cores.
  
  Further info about the CPU:  The processor clocks at between 2.4 - 5 GHz and can execute up to sixteen threads simultaneously thanks to Hyper-Threading. The 5 GHz can only be reached using the "Thermal Velocity Boost" which allows one core to boost to 5 GHz (+200 MHz) as long as the CPU temperature is below 50°C. Multiple cores can be boosted +100 MHz below 50°C (not verified). 
  

  

  Sounds like heat is a real issue with this CPU. And all the other Intel CPUs.

  

  itcrowdmosscomputeronfire-580x358.jpeg 43.4K
• Reply 7 of 49

  caladanian Posts: 363member

  May 26, 2019 10:42PM

  I have the 6-core 2018 ...and would have waited for the 8-core 2019 if I had known about that having less heat issues. As of today I have to throttle the maximum rpm down manually because otherwise both fans would run at 6000 rpm constantly (!) - a noise I can only tolerate when I don’t have time to wait. 
• Reply 8 of 49

  Mike Wuerthele Posts: 6,585administrator

  May 26, 2019 11:05PM

  KITA said:

  lkrupp said:

  And here’s another trope you see being plastered around by know-it-alls, that Apple’s thermals are atrocious and that their clock speeds never come up to the advertised rates. You see these posts on MacRumors, 9to5Mac, and others. No links, no proof, no tests, just questionable or outright disinformation posted as fact. AI tests the new machines and they are performing better than expected and not dropping below the advertised speed. Then enclosure is the same so what’s different. Again the die has already been cast and the anonymous experts are trashing the thermals of the new models. 
  

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.
  
  

  9980HK: On Coffee Lake architecture based processor for big and heavy laptops. Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores) that support HyperThreading. Manufactured in an improved 14nm process (14nm++). Offers an unlocked multiplier that allows overclocking of the CPU.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
  

  
  Based on the tests above it sits between 2.9 GHz and 3.0 GHz.

  I'm not sure where you get that from Notebookcheck. Intel ARK is very clear about 2.4GHz rated, with 5GHz for single-core burst, or 4.2Ghz possible for 8-core.
  

  
• Reply 9 of 49

  KITA Posts: 384member

  May 26, 2019 11:10PM

  martinxyz said:

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.

  I read that slightly differently: "Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores)". I read that as base speed is 2.4 GHz, and can go to 5GHz for a single core, or 4.2 GHz for 8 cores.
  
  

  That's precisely the point, it can go up to 4.2 GHz with 8 cores. It's not 2.4 GHz for 8 cores like Lkrupp believes.
  
  Looks like we're on the same page.

  
• Reply 10 of 49

  Mike Wuerthele Posts: 6,585administrator

  May 26, 2019 11:41PM

  KITA said:

  martinxyz said:

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.

  I read that slightly differently: "Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores)". I read that as base speed is 2.4 GHz, and can go to 5GHz for a single core, or 4.2 GHz for 8 cores.
  
  

  That's precisely the point, it can go up to 4.2 GHz with 8 cores. It's not 2.4 GHz for 8 cores like Lkrupp believes.
  
  Looks like we're on the same page.

  No. The rated speed is 2.4GHz. The Turbo speed is 4.2.

  
• Reply 11 of 49

  chasm Posts: 2,661member

  May 27, 2019 12:09AM

  Thanks Mike for clearing that up perfectly, Notebookcheck is not saying that Intel (or anyone) is claiming 4.2GHz across all eight cores (the Turbo mode) sustained under heavy load. It's claiming 2.4GHz. Despite this, Apple is delivering around 3.0GHz -- 600MHz more performance -- sustained under heavy load.
  
  Bottom line: for everyone but those who need to keep their computers in a beer cooler to squeeze max turbo speed literally all the time, this machine is both a) world-class fast and b) faster than advertised under load.

  edited May 2019
• Reply 12 of 49

  KITA Posts: 384member

  May 27, 2019 12:17AM

  Mike Wuerthele said:

  KITA said:

  martinxyz said:

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.

  I read that slightly differently: "Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores)". I read that as base speed is 2.4 GHz, and can go to 5GHz for a single core, or 4.2 GHz for 8 cores.
  
  

  That's precisely the point, it can go up to 4.2 GHz with 8 cores. It's not 2.4 GHz for 8 cores like Lkrupp believes.
  
  Looks like we're on the same page.

  No. The rated speed is 2.4GHz. The Turbo speed is 4.2.

  You're not saying anything different than I am.
  
  2.4 GHz is the base clock.
  
  4.2 GHz is the turbo clock with all 8 cores in use.
  
  5.0 GHz is the turbo clock with 1 core in use.
  
  The user said: "AI tests the new machines and they are performing better than expected and not dropping below the advertised speed"
  
  The advertised speeds for all 8 cores is up to 4.2 GHz, not up to 2.4 GHz. No one expects a processor to only be able to boost to just its base clock.
  
  If it can't reach its multi-core turbo clock (as is the case here), clearly the implementation is not enough to handle the CPU. However, this is unlikely to be an issue that only Apple encounters. I would suspect other manufacturers run into similar situations with their laptops.

  
• Reply 13 of 49

  KITA Posts: 384member

  May 27, 2019 12:31AM

  Notebookcheck
  
  

  We ran a Cinebench R15 Multi loop for 50 rounds to test sustained performance of the Core i9-9980HK on our pre-production Schenker laptop. At the default settings, we found that the short-term TDP peaked at 83 W for 48 seconds and finally sustained at 55 W. During this process, the 9980HK could score ~1600 points in the first run with all eight cores hitting 3.6-3.9 GHz at 83 W and dropped down to ~1420 points with all eight cores running at 3.2 GHz at 55 W.

  To see if the 9980HK could perform any better, we undervolted the CPU to -130 mV while raising the power limit to 75 W. This condition offered the best sustained performance with the first loop hitting ~1740 points and continuing between ~1720 to ~1740 throughout the test. Laptops featuring the 9980HK that are thinner than our Schenker test model are likely to show increased throttling at heavy workloads. Therefore, those who wish to put the Core i9-9980HK to good use will have to don some elbow grease to tweak the voltages for better sustained performance. 

  
  Takeaways:
  
  Initial implementation saw a single run with all 8 cores hitting 3.6 to 3.9 GHz and a score of ~1600 in R15 and then a drop to ~1400 with all 8 cores at 3.2 GHz (only a little better than the current MBP which hits 3.0 GHz).
  
  Following undervolting, the laptop was able to sustain even higher core frequencies than the single run and offer a sustained score of ~1700. 
  
  
  
  Clearly implementation matters considerably here. In this case, the MBP might also see an improvement from undervolting.
• Reply 14 of 49

  LordeHawk Posts: 168member

  May 27, 2019 12:36AM

  I’m surprised that Apple’s R&D didn’t attach a Peltier cooler to the heat sink.  For smaller projects, the technology is available, still a bit expensive but no fan noise...
  
  One reason for not innovating, the rumored Arm based Macs might not need active cooling.  Apple wouldn’t spend the time and money investing in an expensive solution that could be null in a few years.
  
  Though they have done it before...

  
• Reply 15 of 49

  lkrupp Posts: 10,482member

  May 27, 2019 12:40AM

  And the misinformation is thick and confusing already. Claims, counterclaims, corrections, objections to corrections. And yet the design is declared “poor” because... somebody read it on the Internet.

  
• Reply 16 of 49

  Mike Wuerthele Posts: 6,585administrator

  May 27, 2019 12:42AM

  KITA said:

  Mike Wuerthele said:

  KITA said:

  martinxyz said:

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.

  I read that slightly differently: "Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores)". I read that as base speed is 2.4 GHz, and can go to 5GHz for a single core, or 4.2 GHz for 8 cores.
  
  

  That's precisely the point, it can go up to 4.2 GHz with 8 cores. It's not 2.4 GHz for 8 cores like Lkrupp believes.
  
  Looks like we're on the same page.

  No. The rated speed is 2.4GHz. The Turbo speed is 4.2.

  You're not saying anything different than I am.
  
  2.4 GHz is the base clock.
  
  4.2 GHz is the turbo clock with all 8 cores in use.
  
  5.0 GHz is the turbo clock with 1 core in use.
  
  The user said: "AI tests the new machines and they are performing better than expected and not dropping below the advertised speed"
  
  The advertised speeds for all 8 cores is up to 4.2 GHz, not up to 2.4 GHz. No one expects a processor to only be able to boost to just its base clock.
  
  If it can't reach its multi-core turbo clock (as is the case here), clearly the implementation is not enough to handle the CPU. However, this is unlikely to be an issue that only Apple encounters. I would suspect other manufacturers run into similar situations with their laptops.

  I am saying something differently than you are, but we're coming to the same conclusion.
  
  The advertised speeds for all 8 cores is 2.4GHz, not 4.2. That 2.4GHz is absolutely delivered. all the time, and the machine does hit 4.2 and even 5 -- it just doesn't maintain it. What it maintains is that 2.9-3GHz that we pointed out.
  
  That 4.2/5 maintained isn't promised by Apple, nor is it by every other vendor. 2.4GHz is.

  edited May 2019
• Reply 17 of 49

  jkdsteve Posts: 17member

  May 27, 2019 1:34AM

  I have the 'base' i9 model with the 2.3GHz (4.8 Turbo) and 560x GFX. The only way to get it to hit Turbo is with one Core/Thread in use..then it might get close to 4.8Ghz.
  
  Using 2 cores, it maxes out in the 4.2 range but will drop to 3.8/3.9 under load.
  
  Using all cores (8C/16T) the sustained performance is 2.8-2.9GHz and CINEBENCH r20 score of 2,800-2,900 (max 2,953 with screen update turned off) and the fans more or less max out to keep the CPU 96-97'C
  
  How the heck do you get the CPU below 50'C, it's 60-62 just at idle with Finder (Its probably 18-20'C in the house) I guess Photos might be doing 'stuff' since I've only owned this a couple of days  
  
  
  ALSO: GEEKBENCH 4.3.3 TRYOUT
  
  Single: 5,654 and MULTI: 28,767

  edited May 2019
• Reply 18 of 49

  KITA Posts: 384member

  May 27, 2019 2:12AM

  Mike Wuerthele said:

  KITA said:

  Mike Wuerthele said:

  KITA said:

  martinxyz said:

  The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.

  I read that slightly differently: "Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores)". I read that as base speed is 2.4 GHz, and can go to 5GHz for a single core, or 4.2 GHz for 8 cores.
  
  

  That's precisely the point, it can go up to 4.2 GHz with 8 cores. It's not 2.4 GHz for 8 cores like Lkrupp believes.
  
  Looks like we're on the same page.

  No. The rated speed is 2.4GHz. The Turbo speed is 4.2.

  You're not saying anything different than I am.
  
  2.4 GHz is the base clock.
  
  4.2 GHz is the turbo clock with all 8 cores in use.
  
  5.0 GHz is the turbo clock with 1 core in use.
  
  The user said: "AI tests the new machines and they are performing better than expected and not dropping below the advertised speed"
  
  The advertised speeds for all 8 cores is up to 4.2 GHz, not up to 2.4 GHz. No one expects a processor to only be able to boost to just its base clock.
  
  If it can't reach its multi-core turbo clock (as is the case here), clearly the implementation is not enough to handle the CPU. However, this is unlikely to be an issue that only Apple encounters. I would suspect other manufacturers run into similar situations with their laptops.

  I am saying something differently than you are, but we're coming to the same conclusion.
  
  The advertised speeds for all 8 cores is 2.4GHz, not 4.2. That 2.4GHz is absolutely delivered. all the time, and the machine does hit 4.2 and even 5 -- it just doesn't maintain it. What it maintains is that 2.9-3GHz that we pointed out.
  
  That 4.2/5 maintained isn't promised by Apple, nor is it by every other vendor. 2.4GHz is.

  Which is fine, but again, that's the minimum. With an ideal implementation it could maintain that 4.2 GHz turbo on all 8 cores as advertised by Intel. The Notebookcheck / undervolting test shows that higher levels of performance can be sustained with the right hardware. Although, it's important to be realistic with the size and weight class of the 15" MBP.
  
  Contrary to what that user is claiming, sites and their users aren't "plastering" that Apple can't even hit the base clock.
  
  Judging Apple's thermal implementation is a different story. At that point we'll have to compare it to similar laptops (perhaps the new OLED XPS 15 which also uses the i9).
  

  
• Reply 19 of 49

  electrosoft Posts: 48member

  May 27, 2019 2:32AM

  My takeaway is Apple is faithfully promising and delivering  2.4ghz on all cores based on Intel’s baseline specs for the 9980hk. 
  
  In many situations, based on load, the chip can and will deliver well above that baseline spec in the 2019 MacBook Pro 15. 
  
  Is the 9980hk capable of more? Absolutely. The 9980hk has a large, variable turbo range based on thermal management. Beefier systems with better cooling can and will experience better performance as shown above but that isn’t Apple’s concern. They are delivering as promised. 
  
  
  
  
  
• Reply 20 of 49

  kevin kee Posts: 1,291member

  May 27, 2019 2:50AM

  My takeaway is Apple underpomise and overdeliver in this case, but just like everything about Apple, many complains come from nitpicking the word '4.2GHz' and assumed that's what is 'promised as the baseline' because it just makes the narrative for the thermal problems more plausible.