Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2018 i9 MacBook Pro throttling discussion [merged]

M.Rizk

M.Rizk

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 20, 2015
785
613
Reviews are finally rolling in on YouTube. Finally a review compared exporting a video on a maxed out 15” 2018 vs 2017. The 2017 finished exporting it 2 minutes faster because the i9 throttled so bad causing worse performance when compared to the maxed i7 CPU in the 2017 model.


Another more informative video (thanks to @zshane1125 )
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: afir93, blackreplica, outsidethebox and 3 others
M.Rizk said:
Reviews are finally rolling in on YouTube. Finally a review compared exporting a video on a maxed out 15” 2018 vs 2017. The 2017 finished exporting it 2 minutes faster because the i9 throttled so bad causing worse performance when compared to the maxed i7 CPU in the 2017 model.

Click to expand...

I saw this video when it came out, it's not thermal throttling, it's most likely software optimization are not yet out for the 8th gen CPUs.

The temps for the i9 were fine.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Beachguy, RuffDraft, DanBig and 6 others
zshane1125 said:
I saw this video when it came out, it's not thermal throttling, it's most likely software optimization are not yet out for the 8th gen CPUs.

The temps for the i9 was fine.
Click to expand...

Yup optimization of FCP is the reason for this. Currently with my 4K video workflow using Adobe Premier saves me a little over a minute and a half currently prior to Adobe sending out an update for the new chips in the Macs.
[doublepost=1531800559][/doublepost]
blackberrycubed said:
core i9 purchasers are gonna have a heart attack!!!!!
Click to expand...

Only the amount of money we spent for the new MacBooks would give us a heart attack. Performance wise, I'm already experiencing the difference of going from quad to hex core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beachguy, paulvee, afir93 and 4 others
mr.anthonyramos said:
Likewise when they went dual to quad. So you are correct. As I said, things will slowly get better with optimization but generally, you should still get better results with daily use with the i9.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha yea that’s how multi threaded programming works... I give you 1->2->many, after two everyone rewrote their code to be generalized. You can’t optimize away heat, the solution will likely to use less bare metal threads, which negates the whole effing point.
 
.
[doublepost=1531805754][/doublepost]It's not thermal throttling. CPU utilization during the video rendering was 80% on 6 core vs. 100% on 4 core.... and 50% vs 30% during compression.... I wonder why.... :D It's also possible that the fans weren't running full speed on either machines due to idiotic default RPM curves. Also throttling occurs at around 99-102 C degrees.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 0009827
I wish I would've had the money to drop to get the i9 with the 32 gigs. talk about a beast of a computer. $3000 is a lot, but it was a huge upgrade from my 2012 MBP that had a dual core i7. I went with the normal higher speced version for a few reasons:

I set a $3k limit. I wanted a balance between practicality and power. And then I thought about the worst of the worst. if my computer had an immediate issue (and it did!) how easy would it be to replace. I'm past the issue, and hope to have it as my daily computer until im 40 (I'm 32 now).
 
  • Like
Reactions: macintoshmac
maratus said:
.
[doublepost=1531805754][/doublepost]It's not thermal throttling. CPU utilization during the video rendering was 80% on 6 core vs. 100% on 4 core.... and 50% vs 30% during compression.... I wonder why.... :D It's also possible that the fans weren't running full speed on either machines due to idiotic default RPM curves. Also throttling occurs at around 99-102 C degrees.
Click to expand...

Probably the software is hard-coded to use 4 threads max.

Either way, the problem is as old as humanity itself. Incompetent people doing something they don’t understand and interpreting it in random ways, other incompetent people spreading that FUD all over the internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maratus, RuffDraft, 0009827 and 10 others
Two Stacks said:
I wish I would've had the money to drop to get the i9 with the 32 gigs. talk about a beast of a computer. $3000 is a lot, but it was a huge upgrade from my 2012 MBP that had a dual core i7. I went with the normal higher speced version for a few reasons:

I set a $3k limit. I wanted a balance between practicality and power. And then I thought about the worst of the worst. if my computer had an immediate issue (and it did!) how easy would it be to replace. I'm past the issue, and hope to have it as my daily computer until im 40 (I'm 32 now).
Click to expand...

Either way you still have an awesome machine!
 
  • Like
Reactions: afir93, kildraik, Patcell and 2 others
leman said:
Probably the software is hard-coded to use 4 threads max.

Either way, the problem is as old as humanity itself. Incompetent people doing something they don’t understand and interpreting it in random ways, other incompetent people spreading that FUD all over the internet.
Click to expand...

Seems weird that software would be hard coded to cores and threads. I hope that's the case although it seems really odd. Why not just have it scale to X amounts of cores and threads like most software?

I was on the fence about upgrading but swaying towards buying one. I think I'll wait a bit and hope these curious benchmarks aren't related to some sort of Apple implemented CPU throttling due to the limitations of the chassis.
 
KarmaRocket said:
Seems weird that software would be hard coded to cores and threads. I hope that's the case although it seems really odd. Why not just have it scale to X amounts of cores and threads like most software?
Click to expand...

It is odd, especially since Apple's own Grand Central Dispatch scales automatically with the available cores. Maybe FPCX is hand-optimised, who knows. But its clear from the video that the software is not utilising all the cores properly.

My i9 should be arriving at some point, and I will test it out (for my work though). The 2016 models have excellent cooling. But the i9 is a challenge.
 
mr.anthonyramos said:
iMac Pros aren’t using 8th Gen Chips.
Click to expand...

The generation of chip shouldn't meaningfully affect whether or not a program is multithreaded. Intel occasionally comes out with custom, low-level features (like AVX) that programs need to be updated to take advantage of, but stuff like number of threads can be worked on without having the current chip in hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: green86, Eason85, afir93 and 1 other person
this video worrys me, i ordered the maxed out 2018 and sold my 2017 for a good price, why is the new i9 2018 slower than 2017 doesnt make sense
 
Really curious to see benchmarks after more optimizations come on. I assume the 6 core i7 will need optimizations the same as the i9 since they're both 6 core, so I don't think it'll be a blow out. Usually the jumps between upgrades is 10-15% but since it's an i9 instead of an i7 I assume there's some extra magic under the hood or they woulda just called it an i7? Any insight on why it's an i9 or is it just more ghz and cache like always?

Either way I assume throttling will come into play somewhat for the i9 since it's blazing fast and Apple didn't change the case design in any way to make up for that. As someone who always got the baseline quad core and upgraded to the high end quad core in my latest MBP, I can definitely hear a difference in fan noise and heat with editing and other stuff. Kinda regret the upgrade I think the whatever baseline is the smart choice in laptops this small and tight, if more power is needed the eGPU seems like the way to go when at home now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back