Last Active
  • Hands on with Apple's 15-inch 2018 MacBook Pro with i7 processor

    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:

    Can't even defeat XPS in thermals, not a big surprise if you haven't made any change to design.
  • Test suggests 2018 MacBook Pro can't keep up with Intel Core i9 chip's thermal demands

    cgWerks said:
    DuhSesame said:
    cgWerks said:
    This doesn't surprise me too much. Doesn't the iMac Pro even do this?

    It does surprise me a bit, though, that it would be slower than the 2017. Aren't both CPUs similar in terms of thermals? The same chassis should have similar thermal handling capabilities... though MBPs have never handled heat all that well in my experience. And, at least in the past, the problems went beyond the CPU throttling down, but resulted in damage to other components.
    Like I said before, nope.  Same 14nm and two extra cores, you’d only expect it to be hotter.
    But it’s not only the MacBook Pro that throttles, most of the laptops do back in the 4th generation.
    Sorry, I'm confused now... what part do you mean 'nope' to? Is the TDP per core? I thought the TDP was for the whole cpu-package, and is the same between 2017 and 2018... which should mean the same heat output.

    See that tricks me in the early days as well, which I think it wouldn't be so bad to keep something under 45W to cool.

    But what TDP really means, I think, is "the smallest value of a cooler you can put on top of our processors".  something can cool down 45W at maximum will work at least, but will not sustain it's maximum turbo boost frequency at all.  That's the basic practice among the industries today, where you'll always expect the fastest core i7 runs more than 60-70W when tested.

    And each and every processors comes with a different thermal output as well.  An i7-8750H can be either much cooler, or just as hot as an Core i9, mostly because TDP also rated in "the maximum value from a processor family".
  • Tested: Thermal conditions in the 2018 i9 MacBook Pro dramatically hampering performance

    ahobbit said:
    The real question is, how could this have gotten past Apple QC?
    if simple tests as the ones done by Lee, AI and others reveal a potential throttling issue where the i9 is unable to maintain the advertised base frequency, even ending up slower in some cases than last year's i7 model, how could Apple not have known about this?

    Does it mean, Apple cares more about specs on paper than real world performance for pro users?

    Didn't Apple bring in-house many pro users to have them help design the next Mac Pro?
    Why were these people not involved in the MacBook Pro i9 testing?  Wouldn't that seem obvious?
    A wasted opportunity?  
    A waste of in-house resources?

    Apple more and more seems poorly managed...
    For all the money and resources they have, they should produce better results - if it is true that they still care about pro users, as they claim.

    Either they don't actually care as much as they claim - or cannot do any better than that.
    Both are very troubling if you are a pro user.
    Again, short-time bursts.  i9 will make things like opening applications or other small actions faster, but not long-term computing.

    The only thing that can provide maximum turbo boost for an i9 can only be those huge gaming laptops.
  • Tested: Thermal conditions in the 2018 i9 MacBook Pro dramatically hampering performance

    tommy65 said:
    Dutch magazine showed that The TDP is not 45W but 120W under load. Now all make sence. So no thermal but TDP problem instead.
    120W for an core i9?  I remembered the worst chip from Intel in the previous generation only hit 90W almost, but not more than 100W.

    Not even a Type-C can give enough power to drive that thing.
  • Apple refreshes MacBook Pro with six-core processors, 32GB of RAM

    Rayz2016 said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 

    Nevermind, they are already downplaying the fact they were wrong. 

    Unfortunately for you, gloating only works when you don't make stuff up to do it.

    No one said that "no one needs 32GB of RAM"

    What lot's of people said was "How do you know if if it doesn't work for you if you haven't tried it?"

    And I think the case still stands that most people like to think they need 32GB, but they actually don't.

    It’s better in performance, nonetheless.  We can questioning them why not do that in the first place, but then it’s not important anymore.

    Until 2 weeks from now when everyone starts whining on how they can't live without 64GB of RAM.

    chabig said:
    Damn you Apple. Why did you put in 32GB? What will all the pretend haters who claim they run multiple VMs whine about now?
    It’s 2018 now. Everyone knows a machine can’t be “Pro” unless it ships with 64GB.
    What fools you all are. 128GB is the new PRO standard. Don't mind the 2 hours of battery life!
    EXCUSE me.

    256GB is the actual Pro standard. And don't tell me you're a professional unless you have any processors less than 18 cores and have at least 7 VM instances running 24/7.
    No, EXCUSE ME.  if you find yourself running out of RAM, then you’ll always need more RAM.  There is no such a thing as “Pro” standard memory.