..., a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
Just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
Except not really. a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Good god, stop complaining! Don't be so short-sighted. Apple just announced this new Mac Pro. It's a beast of a computer, and no their marketing and engineering departments didn't lock themselves in a room for two years designing this new Mac purely based on gut speculation on what "might" be a good idea. Apple has a lot of resources at its disposal. Apple certainly picked up the phone and called several prominent players and asked them about their current and future challenges and what might satisfy those needs. I'm equally sure Apple Inquired with an absolute boatload of leading small and solo operations to understand the same.
Now the critical thing to keep in mind is that time does not stand still. This isn't going to be the way things are forever! The Mac Pro will change in components, configuration, and price. Apple just spent a crap load of cash designing and building this computer, and just as any smart company out there, they are cautious stepping out of the door. Of course, the company did their research, and I'm sure they already have several buyers lined up for not 100 but thousands. Once the Mac Pro hits the shelves apple will have actual data on how well the Mac Pro is selling and in what configurations.
Targeting the ultra high end at this stage makes sense. After you've done all this work its a reasonably safe strategy to help ensure cash flow in case of lower than expected sales. Once the tracks are greased with these high margin configurations and if there is a significant enough market for a lower level entry Mac Pro then possibly they will do it. Its the same story with the Display. Now, none of this is guaranteed, and Apple will do as they wish.
But for the love of Buddha stop complaining because this computer isn't precisely what you thought it could, should, or would be. Apple is super successful because? Oh, that's right they have a warehouse full of incredibly talented marketing and research teams along with an executive suite that tends to make good calls. Of course, Apple makes mistakes. The trash can Mac Pro is a perfect example, but good golly let it go. Are you an expert in marketing and market research? Did Apple hire you? No? Then let's move on with our lives.
Okay. it’s hard to say what the future will hold because AMD stirs up all the plans. We got an i9 because Intel need a brand that “tops” Ryzen 7, which at the time start the battle of core counts. Otherwise, we’ll be still seeing four to. six cores i7 at best.
That being said, AMD isn’t great at mobile technology like Intel, so they can’t turn their multi-core desktops into laptops, which that’s the strength of Intel, but as you know, they’re stuck in 14nm and just get out this summer. The fate of mobile performance at this time, is still dependent to Intel in general, if they sucks, then mobile sucks.
Okay. it’s hard to say what the future will hold because AMD stirs up all the plans. We got an i9 because Intel need a brand that “tops” Ryzen 7, which at the time start the battle of core counts. Otherwise, we’ll be still seeing four to. six cores i7 at best.
That being said, AMD isn’t great at mobile technology like Intel, so they can’t turn their multi-core desktops into laptops, which that’s the strength of Intel, but as you know, they’re stuck in 14nm and just get out this summer. The fate of mobile performance at this time, is still dependent to Intel in general, if they sucks, then mobile sucks.
We'll have to see but I can't imagine Apple putting in the time to switch to AMD given they show every sign of shifting to ARM. Obviously that wouldn't happen all at once and the high end Mac's will be the last to go. I imagine they will simply work around the Intel problem as best they can until a long term solution can be made.
Okay. it’s hard to say what the future will hold because AMD stirs up all the plans. We got an i9 because Intel need a brand that “tops” Ryzen 7, which at the time start the battle of core counts. Otherwise, we’ll be still seeing four to. six cores i7 at best.
That being said, AMD isn’t great at mobile technology like Intel, so they can’t turn their multi-core desktops into laptops, which that’s the strength of Intel, but as you know, they’re stuck in 14nm and just get out this summer. The fate of mobile performance at this time, is still dependent to Intel in general, if they sucks, then mobile sucks.
We'll have to see but I can't imagine Apple putting in the time to switch to AMD given they show every sign of shifting to ARM. Obviously that wouldn't happen all at once and the high end Mac's will be the last to go. I imagine they will simply work around the Intel problem as best they can until a long term solution can be made.
Nah, I was explaining why mobile processors sucks these days. I know they’re switching to ARM.
..., a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
Just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
Except not really. a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Well, to be fair, you have to compare the same equivalent lines. You don’t compare a mobile i7 to a desktop i5, you compare it to a Desktop i7. If you say that you have the most powerful Macbook Pro, and it’s too slow, then look to the most powerful iMac instead, and I don’t mean the Pro model, unless you really need that.
intel isn’t incompetent. AMD isn’t great either. Intel has been trying to do something with 10nm that turns out to be extremely difficult. Other manufacturers have taken the easier road there, and so seemingly pulled ahead. Intel mostly competes against itself. If they don’t have better chips, their sales fall, and so does their profit. That affects R&D spending too, which affects future products. They tried to get ahead of the game by doing too much with the architecture. Now they’ve finally got it working. Their newest chips have a good performance enhancement.
Okay. it’s hard to say what the future will hold because AMD stirs up all the plans. We got an i9 because Intel need a brand that “tops” Ryzen 7, which at the time start the battle of core counts. Otherwise, we’ll be still seeing four to. six cores i7 at best.
That being said, AMD isn’t great at mobile technology like Intel, so they can’t turn their multi-core desktops into laptops, which that’s the strength of Intel, but as you know, they’re stuck in 14nm and just get out this summer. The fate of mobile performance at this time, is still dependent to Intel in general, if they sucks, then mobile sucks.
We got an i9 because Intel saw a need for it. The truth is that AMD is doing poorly in the HPC segment—the one they wanted most to succeed in. Look at the big workstation and server manufacturers, and you’ll be hard pressed to find many AMD offerings. Customers simply don’t want AMD products. AMD is popular with the enthusiast market where the desire for power exceeds what’s in the wallet. They’re also somewhat successful in the lower end markets where the most of their sales have alway been. It looks, for a while, historically, like they’re going to break out, but they never do. At some point, Intel gets going, and AMD shoots themselves in the foot. This always seems to happen just at the time writers are talking at how AMD is taking share from Intel.
..., a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
Just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
Except not really. a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Well, to be fair, you have to compare the same equivalent lines. You don’t compare a mobile i7 to a desktop i5, you compare it to a Desktop i7. If you say that you have the most powerful Macbook Pro, and it’s too slow, then look to the most powerful iMac instead, and I don’t mean the Pro model, unless you really need that.
intel isn’t incompetent. AMD isn’t great either. Intel has been trying to do something with 10nm that turns out to be extremely difficult. Other manufacturers have taken the easier road there, and so seemingly pulled ahead. Intel mostly competes against itself. If they don’t have better chips, their sales fall, and so does their profit. That affects R&D spending too, which affects future products. They tried to get ahead of the game by doing too much with the architecture. Now they’ve finally got it working. Their newest chips have a good performance enhancement.
The reason I’m comparing desktop i5 to mobile i7 is because an i5 isn’t slow at all, they’re somewhere mid-to-high-tier.
Speaking of Intel, they’ve just announced Ice Lake couple weeks ago, everyone agreed it’s less promising than what AMD offers. Zen 2 is offering 12 cores, new process and lower consumption all at once, while Ice Lake merely improves the IPC. Just getting rid of 14nm isn’t an achievement as TSMC announced 7nm a year earlier, let alone having mobile processors as strong as A12X, where all of the ultrabooks I knew throttles despite being actively cooled! If anything, Intel is pulling the legs of mobile processors, but ironically we don’t have people that can do better, yet.
I don’t know what AMD is doing in HPC, that would have different requirements there, but it’s clear that Intel is failing in the consumer market.
AMD used to name its APU by 2,4,6,8,10 or 12, just to referring Intel’s 3,5 and 7. So numerically wise, they’re always a tier higher. That’s why Intel suddenly announced i9 after a year competing with Ryzen 7 and ruining once clean and organized naming scheme. I’ve heard the idea of an “i9” as early as the 2nd-gen, but only now it comes true.
DuhSesame said: Since I don’t know which model you have and what problem it is, it’s hard to say what caused the issue. Generally speaking, only CPU and GPU need to be properly cooled (include SSDs because now they throttled too), where rest of the chips & components can run by itself. Both Retina and Touch Bar vent air from both side, so there is airflow in the entire machine (as well the SSD), something that older models don’t do. But of course, the i7/i9 is way too hot for the heat pipe.
Here’s my thought, I think they need to draw some lines, like keeping the CPU within 70-80 degree Celsius when stress tested, while make sure everything will get some airflow too, then think about how slim it will actually be.
70-80 in stress test is pretty safe because 99.9% of softwares aren’t going to push the CPU this hard, not even encoding.
As for the dust and thermal paste, that’s just the nature of actively-cooled and silicon gel. You’ll open it up sometimes to clean it, unless you’re using passively-cooled system, like iPads or MacBook (which still need to re-paste years later).
Oh, I currently run a 2018 Mac mini. I used to run my previous Mac mini pretty hard, and it was OK... so I think they are a bit more robust than the laptops (from my limited experience. Though when I worked in Fortune 100, we had nearly a server room cabinet full of minis setup for developer test boxes, which got pounded hard at times. I can't recall any of them failing.)
I'd agree with you on the 70-80C when stress tested. I'd be happy as a clam if that were the situation. Even running my mini at 40% capacity, it sits right up around 94C most of the time. It would go higher (I think it sits around 100C when full out with the fans keeping it around there... but they are NOISY when that happens).
My complaint is that thermals aren't driving the design parameters. It seems to be more like... 'well, we can design it this way, and it will be OK most of the time except when people work them hard... which they hopefully won't do often.'
re: thermal paste - Yeah, I've done that on a couple of the laptops in the past. It would probably be a good idea at some point on any machine. I'm not sure Apple can do anything about that. It's just a computing reality.
melgross said: People who do YouTube videos will not have a problem. I thought I made it clear that standard 1080p isn’t a problem anymore. This workstation isn’t made for that. It’s made for real high end work. Macbook Pros aren’t fine for that. Since these discussions are revolving around the new Mac Pro, this has to be brought into the conversation. Complaining that something g isn’t up to the task because it gets hot, throttles, or is just otherwise slow, simply says that that’s not the proper machine for the job, and complaining about it doesn’t change that, a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
But, they will have a problem (or potential problem)... that's the point. You're talking about a difference in potential performance, and I fully agree. But, crunching 1080p videos, playing a little Minecraft, or a zillion other things will send these machines off to fans screaming at full speed, and 100C temps. It's more about how often/long that happens, I suppose.
But, should a YouTuber who encodes videos several hours each day be required to buy an iMac Pro or Mac Pro, or otherwise be told you're risking your machine because you bought the wrong one? I guess my take on it is that with proper design, ANY model except for maybe the most base units, should be able to handle it. It would just impact how long it takes or if the machine 'moves' quickly enough for your workflow.
melgross said: Unless you’re outside, in the sun, on a day that’s hot, there shouldn’t be a problem. Too many people complain when their laptops get hot. Laptops have always gotten hot, particularly when pushed hard for a while. The batteries get hot, the RAM gets hot. The CPU gets hot. The GPU gets hot.
Well, maybe it isn't a problem anymore? That hasn't been my past experience. That's what I'm saying. IMO, the design should be such that it doesn't get that far (and I'm not just talking about in the sun on a hot day... it happens in a dark room with the AC cranked, too).
Fortunately, fewer components are likely as fussy about heat. Also, we're (hopefully) past most of the issues resulting from changes in solder-composition (again, 2000s).
melgross said: some people are doing work at levels that make me cringe, and I’m not the only one. But, by all means, think you’re doing Pro work. That’s the general “you” I’m using. I’m not referring to you, specifically. I understand where you’re coming from.
I totally get the point there. But, I think Apple should have a machine for those cringe-worthy pros, too. What percentage of Apple's users aren't Mac Pro level pro users, but still run their machines pretty hard? I'd think it would be a pretty high percentage.
DuhSesame said: Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Yes and no. Do I wish Intel were doing better on the thermal/power front? Sure. But, Apple knows the situation, and has the final responsibility to adjust their designs accordingly. If I bought an engine and threw it in my car, and then set the redline point 5k RPM too high, would that be the engine manufacturers fault?
I think we’re heading to an endless argument, so I’ll sums up my points, and wait to see what future will hold:
1. While laptops are slower than their counterparts, they’re not slow, and not far behind from the latter. High-end laptops should be faster than most desktops, and certainly competent for heavy tasks and we should expect that.
2. Again, when done it right, mobile processors shouldn’t be far behind their counterparts, but Intel is incompetent at this point, we just don’t have a better replacement.
Now I have no idea how Apple would set their lineups in the future, so all of our theories remains to see. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong and accept that then moves on, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Yes and no. Do I wish Intel were doing better on the thermal/power front? Sure. But, Apple knows the situation, and has the final responsibility to adjust their designs accordingly. If I bought an engine and threw it in my car, and then set the redline point 5k RPM too high, would that be the engine manufacturers fault?
I’m mostly referring their mobile processors, because, well, you can always put a better cooler if you have enough space. Complaints around the 9900K isn’t as harsh as mobile counterparts. They’re just performing casual upgrades for the iMacs this time, no changes were made internally.
By the way, my “threshold” were used to be true. Some older laptops I have don’t pass that line because they’re much easier to cool. That faded away since the i7, and suddenly it’s nearly impossible to achieve.
..., a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
Just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
Except not really. a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Well, to be fair, you have to compare the same equivalent lines. You don’t compare a mobile i7 to a desktop i5, you compare it to a Desktop i7. If you say that you have the most powerful Macbook Pro, and it’s too slow, then look to the most powerful iMac instead, and I don’t mean the Pro model, unless you really need that.
intel isn’t incompetent. AMD isn’t great either. Intel has been trying to do something with 10nm that turns out to be extremely difficult. Other manufacturers have taken the easier road there, and so seemingly pulled ahead. Intel mostly competes against itself. If they don’t have better chips, their sales fall, and so does their profit. That affects R&D spending too, which affects future products. They tried to get ahead of the game by doing too much with the architecture. Now they’ve finally got it working. Their newest chips have a good performance enhancement.
The reason I’m comparing desktop i5 to mobile i7 is because an i5 isn’t slow at all, they’re somewhere mid-to-high-tier.
Speaking of Intel, they’ve just announced Ice Lake couple weeks ago, everyone agreed it’s less promising than what AMD offers. Zen 2 is offering 12 cores, new process and lower consumption all at once, while Ice Lake merely improves the IPC. Just getting rid of 14nm isn’t an achievement as TSMC announced 7nm a year earlier, let alone having mobile processors as strong as A12X, where all of the ultrabooks I knew throttles despite being actively cooled! If anything, Intel is pulling the legs of mobile processors, but ironically we don’t have people that can do better, yet.
I don’t know what AMD is doing in HPC, that would have different requirements there, but it’s clear that Intel is failing in the consumer market.
20% is the difference between running comfortably, and pegging the meter. At the highest levels, power draw and heat are much worse than just a bit lower. Remember that power draw is measured at the top of the curve, not for average use.
”everyone agreed” means nothing to me. Who is this everyone?
DuhSesame said: Since I don’t know which model you have and what problem it is, it’s hard to say what caused the issue. Generally speaking, only CPU and GPU need to be properly cooled (include SSDs because now they throttled too), where rest of the chips & components can run by itself. Both Retina and Touch Bar vent air from both side, so there is airflow in the entire machine (as well the SSD), something that older models don’t do. But of course, the i7/i9 is way too hot for the heat pipe.
Here’s my thought, I think they need to draw some lines, like keeping the CPU within 70-80 degree Celsius when stress tested, while make sure everything will get some airflow too, then think about how slim it will actually be.
70-80 in stress test is pretty safe because 99.9% of softwares aren’t going to push the CPU this hard, not even encoding.
As for the dust and thermal paste, that’s just the nature of actively-cooled and silicon gel. You’ll open it up sometimes to clean it, unless you’re using passively-cooled system, like iPads or MacBook (which still need to re-paste years later).
Oh, I currently run a 2018 Mac mini. I used to run my previous Mac mini pretty hard, and it was OK... so I think they are a bit more robust than the laptops (from my limited experience. Though when I worked in Fortune 100, we had nearly a server room cabinet full of minis setup for developer test boxes, which got pounded hard at times. I can't recall any of them failing.)
I'd agree with you on the 70-80C when stress tested. I'd be happy as a clam if that were the situation. Even running my mini at 40% capacity, it sits right up around 94C most of the time. It would go higher (I think it sits around 100C when full out with the fans keeping it around there... but they are NOISY when that happens).
My complaint is that thermals aren't driving the design parameters. It seems to be more like... 'well, we can design it this way, and it will be OK most of the time except when people work them hard... which they hopefully won't do often.'
re: thermal paste - Yeah, I've done that on a couple of the laptops in the past. It would probably be a good idea at some point on any machine. I'm not sure Apple can do anything about that. It's just a computing reality.
melgross said: People who do YouTube videos will not have a problem. I thought I made it clear that standard 1080p isn’t a problem anymore. This workstation isn’t made for that. It’s made for real high end work. Macbook Pros aren’t fine for that. Since these discussions are revolving around the new Mac Pro, this has to be brought into the conversation. Complaining that something g isn’t up to the task because it gets hot, throttles, or is just otherwise slow, simply says that that’s not the proper machine for the job, and complaining about it doesn’t change that, a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
But, they will have a problem (or potential problem)... that's the point. You're talking about a difference in potential performance, and I fully agree. But, crunching 1080p videos, playing a little Minecraft, or a zillion other things will send these machines off to fans screaming at full speed, and 100C temps. It's more about how often/long that happens, I suppose.
But, should a YouTuber who encodes videos several hours each day be required to buy an iMac Pro or Mac Pro, or otherwise be told you're risking your machine because you bought the wrong one? I guess my take on it is that with proper design, ANY model except for maybe the most base units, should be able to handle it. It would just impact how long it takes or if the machine 'moves' quickly enough for your workflow.
melgross said: Unless you’re outside, in the sun, on a day that’s hot, there shouldn’t be a problem. Too many people complain when their laptops get hot. Laptops have always gotten hot, particularly when pushed hard for a while. The batteries get hot, the RAM gets hot. The CPU gets hot. The GPU gets hot.
Well, maybe it isn't a problem anymore? That hasn't been my past experience. That's what I'm saying. IMO, the design should be such that it doesn't get that far (and I'm not just talking about in the sun on a hot day... it happens in a dark room with the AC cranked, too).
Fortunately, fewer components are likely as fussy about heat. Also, we're (hopefully) past most of the issues resulting from changes in solder-composition (again, 2000s).
melgross said: some people are doing work at levels that make me cringe, and I’m not the only one. But, by all means, think you’re doing Pro work. That’s the general “you” I’m using. I’m not referring to you, specifically. I understand where you’re coming from.
I totally get the point there. But, I think Apple should have a machine for those cringe-worthy pros, too. What percentage of Apple's users aren't Mac Pro level pro users, but still run their machines pretty hard? I'd think it would be a pretty high percentage.
DuhSesame said: Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Yes and no. Do I wish Intel were doing better on the thermal/power front? Sure. But, Apple knows the situation, and has the final responsibility to adjust their designs accordingly. If I bought an engine and threw it in my car, and then set the redline point 5k RPM too high, would that be the engine manufacturers fault?
I think this entire discussion boils down to the point of; “I have a laptop and it’s getting too hot, and not performing the way I think it should. I also think that I shouldn’t have to buy a Desktop to get my work done.”
..., a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
Just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
Except not really. a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Well, to be fair, you have to compare the same equivalent lines. You don’t compare a mobile i7 to a desktop i5, you compare it to a Desktop i7. If you say that you have the most powerful Macbook Pro, and it’s too slow, then look to the most powerful iMac instead, and I don’t mean the Pro model, unless you really need that.
intel isn’t incompetent. AMD isn’t great either. Intel has been trying to do something with 10nm that turns out to be extremely difficult. Other manufacturers have taken the easier road there, and so seemingly pulled ahead. Intel mostly competes against itself. If they don’t have better chips, their sales fall, and so does their profit. That affects R&D spending too, which affects future products. They tried to get ahead of the game by doing too much with the architecture. Now they’ve finally got it working. Their newest chips have a good performance enhancement.
The reason I’m comparing desktop i5 to mobile i7 is because an i5 isn’t slow at all, they’re somewhere mid-to-high-tier.
Speaking of Intel, they’ve just announced Ice Lake couple weeks ago, everyone agreed it’s less promising than what AMD offers. Zen 2 is offering 12 cores, new process and lower consumption all at once, while Ice Lake merely improves the IPC. Just getting rid of 14nm isn’t an achievement as TSMC announced 7nm a year earlier, let alone having mobile processors as strong as A12X, where all of the ultrabooks I knew throttles despite being actively cooled! If anything, Intel is pulling the legs of mobile processors, but ironically we don’t have people that can do better, yet.
I don’t know what AMD is doing in HPC, that would have different requirements there, but it’s clear that Intel is failing in the consumer market.
20% is the difference between running comfortably, and pegging the meter. At the highest levels, power draw and heat are much worse than just a bit lower. Remember that power draw is measured at the top of the curve, not for average use.
”everyone agreed” means nothing to me. Who is this everyone?
Everyone who builds their own PC.
20% (and below) isn’t night & day as you’d suggest, in reality is merely few seconds depending on your workload. Do you really think less than 1/5 the difference will speeds up your productivity by a half? If it’s slow on that laptop, it will be slow on that desktop too. Saying that desktop variants are way faster is not the case at all.
Yeah, ultrabooks draws twice or three times the power, yet won’t outrun something fan-less. That shows how embarrassing the 8th gen really is.
“On the CPU side, Intel says that clock for clock, Ice Lake’s performance is 18 percent faster, which sounds impressive ‘til you consider it’s comparing against the Skylake cores the company released nearly four years ago!”
..., a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
Just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
Except not really. a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Well, to be fair, you have to compare the same equivalent lines. You don’t compare a mobile i7 to a desktop i5, you compare it to a Desktop i7. If you say that you have the most powerful Macbook Pro, and it’s too slow, then look to the most powerful iMac instead, and I don’t mean the Pro model, unless you really need that.
intel isn’t incompetent. AMD isn’t great either. Intel has been trying to do something with 10nm that turns out to be extremely difficult. Other manufacturers have taken the easier road there, and so seemingly pulled ahead. Intel mostly competes against itself. If they don’t have better chips, their sales fall, and so does their profit. That affects R&D spending too, which affects future products. They tried to get ahead of the game by doing too much with the architecture. Now they’ve finally got it working. Their newest chips have a good performance enhancement.
The reason I’m comparing desktop i5 to mobile i7 is because an i5 isn’t slow at all, they’re somewhere mid-to-high-tier.
Speaking of Intel, they’ve just announced Ice Lake couple weeks ago, everyone agreed it’s less promising than what AMD offers. Zen 2 is offering 12 cores, new process and lower consumption all at once, while Ice Lake merely improves the IPC. Just getting rid of 14nm isn’t an achievement as TSMC announced 7nm a year earlier, let alone having mobile processors as strong as A12X, where all of the ultrabooks I knew throttles despite being actively cooled! If anything, Intel is pulling the legs of mobile processors, but ironically we don’t have people that can do better, yet.
I don’t know what AMD is doing in HPC, that would have different requirements there, but it’s clear that Intel is failing in the consumer market.
20% is the difference between running comfortably, and pegging the meter. At the highest levels, power draw and heat are much worse than just a bit lower. Remember that power draw is measured at the top of the curve, not for average use.
”everyone agreed” means nothing to me. Who is this everyone?
Everyone who builds their own PC.
20% (and below) isn’t night & day as you’d suggest, in reality is merely few seconds depending on your workload. Do you really think less than 1/5 the difference will speeds up your productivity by a half? If it’s slow on that laptop, it will be slow on that desktop too. Saying that desktop variants are way faster is not the case at all.
Yeah, ultrabooks draws twice or three times the power, yet won’t outrun something fan-less. That shows how embarrassing the 8th gen really is.
If you’re rendering a fair size project, 20% could easily be 30 minutes, or even a hour. In my company, 10% made a difference. Going to the really high end, new model mainframes rarely are more than 6% faster than the current model, but there’s a frenzy of upgrading and buying, because where they’re used, that 6% means a lot.
even if you save a couple of seconds, on work where there’s a flow of creativity, jerking around damages that flow. So there, productivity is adversely affected. Yes. This is something that there’s writing about.
i don’t get why you’re dissing 20%. That’s a lot, not a little. There will never again be the gains we saw in the past. Not with the semiconductor technology we’re still using. Both AMD and Intel, as well as TSMC have stated that moving down more process steps will see less gains, and higher cost per transistor. That’s the iron law of quantum mechanics.
..., a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
Just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
Except not really. a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Well, to be fair, you have to compare the same equivalent lines. You don’t compare a mobile i7 to a desktop i5, you compare it to a Desktop i7. If you say that you have the most powerful Macbook Pro, and it’s too slow, then look to the most powerful iMac instead, and I don’t mean the Pro model, unless you really need that.
intel isn’t incompetent. AMD isn’t great either. Intel has been trying to do something with 10nm that turns out to be extremely difficult. Other manufacturers have taken the easier road there, and so seemingly pulled ahead. Intel mostly competes against itself. If they don’t have better chips, their sales fall, and so does their profit. That affects R&D spending too, which affects future products. They tried to get ahead of the game by doing too much with the architecture. Now they’ve finally got it working. Their newest chips have a good performance enhancement.
The reason I’m comparing desktop i5 to mobile i7 is because an i5 isn’t slow at all, they’re somewhere mid-to-high-tier.
Speaking of Intel, they’ve just announced Ice Lake couple weeks ago, everyone agreed it’s less promising than what AMD offers. Zen 2 is offering 12 cores, new process and lower consumption all at once, while Ice Lake merely improves the IPC. Just getting rid of 14nm isn’t an achievement as TSMC announced 7nm a year earlier, let alone having mobile processors as strong as A12X, where all of the ultrabooks I knew throttles despite being actively cooled! If anything, Intel is pulling the legs of mobile processors, but ironically we don’t have people that can do better, yet.
I don’t know what AMD is doing in HPC, that would have different requirements there, but it’s clear that Intel is failing in the consumer market.
20% is the difference between running comfortably, and pegging the meter. At the highest levels, power draw and heat are much worse than just a bit lower. Remember that power draw is measured at the top of the curve, not for average use.
”everyone agreed” means nothing to me. Who is this everyone?
Everyone who builds their own PC.
20% (and below) isn’t night & day as you’d suggest, in reality is merely few seconds depending on your workload. Do you really think less than 1/5 the difference will speeds up your productivity by a half? If it’s slow on that laptop, it will be slow on that desktop too. Saying that desktop variants are way faster is not the case at all.
Yeah, ultrabooks draws twice or three times the power, yet won’t outrun something fan-less. That shows how embarrassing the 8th gen really is.
If you’re rendering a fair size project, 20% could easily be 30 minutes, or even a hour. In my company, 10% made a difference. Going to the really high end, new model mainframes rarely are more than 6% faster than the current model, but there’s a frenzy of upgrading and buying, because where they’re used, that 6% means a lot.
even if you save a couple of seconds, on work where there’s a flow of creativity, jerking around damages that flow. So there, productivity is adversely affected. Yes. This is something that there’s writing about.
i don’t get why you’re dissing 20%. That’s a lot, not a little. There will never again be the gains we saw in the past. Not with the semiconductor technology we’re still using. Both AMD and Intel, as well as TSMC have stated that moving down more process steps will see less gains, and higher cost per transistor. That’s the iron law of quantum mechanics.
iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro, they’re all mainstream products, which means people who bought them will have different usages & experience than workstations. 20% for your company is significant, but individuals have lots of time and not cutting TV shows to make a profit. Let’s not forget they’re all six and eight-core machines, so for the tasks they do, the difference is negligible. Looking for an iMac to replace MacBook Pro for your tasks isn’t much faster, but workstations with 20% more cores will.
I would agree on you if you’re talking about GPUs, but for CPUs, most people founds that even an i5 is fast enough for everything they do, nor there are anything only an i7 will do.
I don’t think we have an agreement on this topic, so let’s just move on and focus on workstations, which I would agree some of your points. We don’t need arguing this for three days.
..., a different machine is then needed, and depending on the work involved, it can be a new model Mini, a decked out 25” iMac, and iMac pro, or the new Mac Pro.
Just remember that these laptop chips, while they may have the same top level designations as the desktop models, are NOT the desktop models, and don’t perform as well.
Except not really. a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
Well, to be fair, you have to compare the same equivalent lines. You don’t compare a mobile i7 to a desktop i5, you compare it to a Desktop i7. If you say that you have the most powerful Macbook Pro, and it’s too slow, then look to the most powerful iMac instead, and I don’t mean the Pro model, unless you really need that.
intel isn’t incompetent. AMD isn’t great either. Intel has been trying to do something with 10nm that turns out to be extremely difficult. Other manufacturers have taken the easier road there, and so seemingly pulled ahead. Intel mostly competes against itself. If they don’t have better chips, their sales fall, and so does their profit. That affects R&D spending too, which affects future products. They tried to get ahead of the game by doing too much with the architecture. Now they’ve finally got it working. Their newest chips have a good performance enhancement.
The reason I’m comparing desktop i5 to mobile i7 is because an i5 isn’t slow at all, they’re somewhere mid-to-high-tier.
Speaking of Intel, they’ve just announced Ice Lake couple weeks ago, everyone agreed it’s less promising than what AMD offers. Zen 2 is offering 12 cores, new process and lower consumption all at once, while Ice Lake merely improves the IPC. Just getting rid of 14nm isn’t an achievement as TSMC announced 7nm a year earlier, let alone having mobile processors as strong as A12X, where all of the ultrabooks I knew throttles despite being actively cooled! If anything, Intel is pulling the legs of mobile processors, but ironically we don’t have people that can do better, yet.
I don’t know what AMD is doing in HPC, that would have different requirements there, but it’s clear that Intel is failing in the consumer market.
20% is the difference between running comfortably, and pegging the meter. At the highest levels, power draw and heat are much worse than just a bit lower. Remember that power draw is measured at the top of the curve, not for average use.
”everyone agreed” means nothing to me. Who is this everyone?
Everyone who builds their own PC.
20% (and below) isn’t night & day as you’d suggest, in reality is merely few seconds depending on your workload. Do you really think less than 1/5 the difference will speeds up your productivity by a half? If it’s slow on that laptop, it will be slow on that desktop too. Saying that desktop variants are way faster is not the case at all.
Yeah, ultrabooks draws twice or three times the power, yet won’t outrun something fan-less. That shows how embarrassing the 8th gen really is.
If you’re rendering a fair size project, 20% could easily be 30 minutes, or even a hour. In my company, 10% made a difference. Going to the really high end, new model mainframes rarely are more than 6% faster than the current model, but there’s a frenzy of upgrading and buying, because where they’re used, that 6% means a lot.
even if you save a couple of seconds, on work where there’s a flow of creativity, jerking around damages that flow. So there, productivity is adversely affected. Yes. This is something that there’s writing about.
i don’t get why you’re dissing 20%. That’s a lot, not a little. There will never again be the gains we saw in the past. Not with the semiconductor technology we’re still using. Both AMD and Intel, as well as TSMC have stated that moving down more process steps will see less gains, and higher cost per transistor. That’s the iron law of quantum mechanics.
iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro, they’re all mainstream products, which means people who bought them will have different usages & experience than workstations. 20% for your company is significant, but individuals have lots of time and not cutting TV shows to make a profit. Let’s not forget they’re all six and eight-core machines, so for the tasks they do, the difference is negligible. Looking for an iMac to replace MacBook Pro for your tasks isn’t much faster, but workstations with 20% more cores will.
I would agree on you if you’re talking about GPUs, but for CPUs, most people founds that even an i5 is fast enough for everything they do, nor there are anything only an i7 will do.
What you’re doing is setting an argument not to upgrade.
Comments
a mobile i7 is used to be faster than desktop i5s (now you can only count the i9), the Mac mini we have is still using the same processor for mobiles, but in a different power setting (its actual performance is closer to i9-8950HK). The difference in performance is nigh.
I can accept that laptops are noisier and hotter, but as long they can run most of their tasks without throttling, then I’ll say it’s problem-free and competent. Let’s also be honest that modern mini or even iMacs isn’t that cool and quiet and throttles thanks to Intel.
The problem we have today is Intel itself is incompetent, yet we have no other alternatives.
it’s hard to say what the future will hold because AMD stirs up all the plans. We got an i9 because Intel need a brand that “tops” Ryzen 7, which at the time start the battle of core counts. Otherwise, we’ll be still seeing four to. six cores i7 at best.
That being said, AMD isn’t great at mobile technology like Intel, so they can’t turn their multi-core desktops into laptops, which that’s the strength of Intel, but as you know, they’re stuck in 14nm and just get out this summer. The fate of mobile performance at this time, is still dependent to Intel in general, if they sucks, then mobile sucks.
intel isn’t incompetent. AMD isn’t great either. Intel has been trying to do something with 10nm that turns out to be extremely difficult. Other manufacturers have taken the easier road there, and so seemingly pulled ahead. Intel mostly competes against itself. If they don’t have better chips, their sales fall, and so does their profit. That affects R&D spending too, which affects future products. They tried to get ahead of the game by doing too much with the architecture. Now they’ve finally got it working. Their newest chips have a good performance enhancement.
We got an i9 because Intel saw a need for it. The truth is that AMD is doing poorly in the HPC segment—the one they wanted most to succeed in. Look at the big workstation and server manufacturers, and you’ll be hard pressed to find many AMD offerings. Customers simply don’t want AMD products. AMD is popular with the enthusiast market where the desire for power exceeds what’s in the wallet. They’re also somewhat successful in the lower end markets where the most of their sales have alway been. It looks, for a while, historically, like they’re going to break out, but they never do. At some point, Intel gets going, and AMD shoots themselves in the foot. This always seems to happen just at the time writers are talking at how AMD is taking share from Intel.
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_7700k-664-vs-intel_core_i7_7920hq-692
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i9_8950hk-851-vs-intel_core_i7_8700k-763
The reason I’m comparing desktop i5 to mobile i7 is because an i5 isn’t slow at all, they’re somewhere mid-to-high-tier.
Speaking of Intel, they’ve just announced Ice Lake couple weeks ago, everyone agreed it’s less promising than what AMD offers. Zen 2 is offering 12 cores, new process and lower consumption all at once, while Ice Lake merely improves the IPC. Just getting rid of 14nm isn’t an achievement as TSMC announced 7nm a year earlier, let alone having mobile processors as strong as A12X, where all of the ultrabooks I knew throttles despite being actively cooled! If anything, Intel is pulling the legs of mobile processors, but ironically we don’t have people that can do better, yet.
I don’t know what AMD is doing in HPC, that would have different requirements there, but it’s clear that Intel is failing in the consumer market.
I'd agree with you on the 70-80C when stress tested. I'd be happy as a clam if that were the situation. Even running my mini at 40% capacity, it sits right up around 94C most of the time. It would go higher (I think it sits around 100C when full out with the fans keeping it around there... but they are NOISY when that happens).
My complaint is that thermals aren't driving the design parameters. It seems to be more like... 'well, we can design it this way, and it will be OK most of the time except when people work them hard... which they hopefully won't do often.'
re: thermal paste - Yeah, I've done that on a couple of the laptops in the past. It would probably be a good idea at some point on any machine. I'm not sure Apple can do anything about that. It's just a computing reality.
But, they will have a problem (or potential problem)... that's the point. You're talking about a difference in potential performance, and I fully agree. But, crunching 1080p videos, playing a little Minecraft, or a zillion other things will send these machines off to fans screaming at full speed, and 100C temps. It's more about how often/long that happens, I suppose.
But, should a YouTuber who encodes videos several hours each day be required to buy an iMac Pro or Mac Pro, or otherwise be told you're risking your machine because you bought the wrong one? I guess my take on it is that with proper design, ANY model except for maybe the most base units, should be able to handle it. It would just impact how long it takes or if the machine 'moves' quickly enough for your workflow.
Well, maybe it isn't a problem anymore? That hasn't been my past experience. That's what I'm saying. IMO, the design should be such that it doesn't get that far (and I'm not just talking about in the sun on a hot day... it happens in a dark room with the AC cranked, too).
Fortunately, fewer components are likely as fussy about heat. Also, we're (hopefully) past most of the issues resulting from changes in solder-composition (again, 2000s).
I totally get the point there. But, I think Apple should have a machine for those cringe-worthy pros, too. What percentage of Apple's users aren't Mac Pro level pro users, but still run their machines pretty hard? I'd think it would be a pretty high percentage.
Yes and no. Do I wish Intel were doing better on the thermal/power front? Sure. But, Apple knows the situation, and has the final responsibility to adjust their designs accordingly. If I bought an engine and threw it in my car, and then set the redline point 5k RPM too high, would that be the engine manufacturers fault?
1. While laptops are slower than their counterparts, they’re not slow, and not far behind from the latter. High-end laptops should be faster than most desktops, and certainly competent for heavy tasks and we should expect that.
2. Again, when done it right, mobile processors shouldn’t be far behind their counterparts, but Intel is incompetent at this point, we just don’t have a better replacement.
Now I have no idea how Apple would set their lineups in the future, so all of our theories remains to see. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong and accept that then moves on, but I don’t think that’s the case.
By the way, my “threshold” were used to be true. Some older laptops I have don’t pass that line because they’re much easier to cool. That faded away since the i7, and suddenly it’s nearly impossible to achieve.
”everyone agreed” means nothing to me. Who is this everyone?
is that about it?
20% (and below) isn’t night & day as you’d suggest, in reality is merely few seconds depending on your workload. Do you really think less than 1/5 the difference will speeds up your productivity by a half? If it’s slow on that laptop, it will be slow on that desktop too.
Saying that desktop variants are way faster is not the case at all.
Yeah, ultrabooks draws twice or three times the power, yet won’t outrun something fan-less. That shows how embarrassing the 8th gen really is.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/28/18639317/intel-10nm-10th-gen-core-ice-lake-cpu-processor-laptop-launch-thunderbolt-3-sunny-cove
even if you save a couple of seconds, on work where there’s a flow of creativity, jerking around damages that flow. So there, productivity is adversely affected. Yes. This is something that there’s writing about.
i don’t get why you’re dissing 20%. That’s a lot, not a little. There will never again be the gains we saw in the past. Not with the semiconductor technology we’re still using. Both AMD and Intel, as well as TSMC have stated that moving down more process steps will see less gains, and higher cost per transistor. That’s the iron law of quantum mechanics.
I would agree on you if you’re talking about GPUs, but for CPUs, most people founds that even an i5 is fast enough for everything they do, nor there are anything only an i7 will do.