2018 i9 MacBook Pro throttling discussion [merged]

[mr.anthonyramos]

I agree, benchmark's in some case allow for a level of comparison. Personally I'd either pick up the i7 2.2 or the i9, the i7 2.6 I'd avoid.

People need to see how the notebook fits their workflow, equally it's very disappointing for Apple not to have done a better job with the thermals and power...

I agree. Not disposing of with the problem...which is also present in other i9 laptops, Apple should have done a bit more thinking regarding the thermal thresholds of the current chassis. I mean yes sure, still a great machine, but not the sort of greatness I am used to which was the main reason I switched to Mac in the early 2000s.
[doublepost=1532106866][/doublepost]

Right. I honestly could give a **** about Cinebench. I want to know how After Effects, FCP X and Premiere perform between the 2.6GHz i7, 2.2GHz i7, and i9.

Here is another good read regarding the i9 throttling.

https://www.computerworld.com/artic...hat-macbook-pro-core-i9-throttling-story.html

 

[LincolnsiPod]

Has anyone attempted gaming on these 2018 models yet? I think real world experience would be more instructive.

Currently I have a mid-2014 MacBook that throttles when I try to play older games unless the air conditioner is on. That makes me suspect the CPU needs some new thermal paste to help mitigate the throttling, but it's telling even with older MacBooks this was an issue, at least for me.

 

[OC40]

@stringerhye

After Effects on 2.6

https://twitter.com/barefeats/status/1020298516181147648?s=21

 

[anshuvorty]

I agree. Not disposing of with the problem...which is also present in other i9 laptops, Apple should have done a bit more thinking regarding the thermal thresholds of the current chassis. I mean yes sure, still a great machine, but not the sort of greatness I am used to which was the main reason I switched to Mac in the early 2000s.
[doublepost=1532106866][/doublepost]

Here is another good read regarding the i9 throttling.

https://www.computerworld.com/artic...hat-macbook-pro-core-i9-throttling-story.html

You have to admit that changing from a computer-focused company to one that focuses on mobile/tablet 1st mindset did play some part in all of this. I doubt that something like this could happen to a company whose profits stems primarily from selling computers like Apple did in the late 90s-early '00s. That is why their computers were so reliable back then, Apple had to make them great otherwise their financials would suffer. The same isn't true today. Even if the Mac sales decline, deep down, Apple knows, if they prevent their primary cash cow, the iPhone/iPad, from exhibiting these types of problems, they will be fine. That is why I think when the iPhone 4 "antenna-gate" issue became headline news, Apple was front and center and on top of it with a press event and everything. They couldn't let the antenna-gate situation be remedied merely through a press release.

I don't know. I might have become cynical with my analysis, but that is what I think.

 

[Queen6]

I agree. Not disposing of with the problem...which is also present in other i9 laptops, Apple should have done a bit more thinking regarding the thermal thresholds of the current chassis. I mean yes sure, still a great machine, but not the sort of greatness I am used to which was the main reason I switched to Mac in the early 2000s.
[doublepost=1532106866][/doublepost]

Here is another good read regarding the i9 throttling.

https://www.computerworld.com/artic...hat-macbook-pro-core-i9-throttling-story.html

i9 is simply a poor choice for the MBP, equally Apple's sales & marketing likely rammed it down engineering's throat.

It may be better for some worflows that don't require sustained heavy loads. The i9 will perform, however the value of the CPU is severely demimished.

Q-6

 

[Elektrofone]

@stringerhye

After Effects on 2.6

https://twitter.com/barefeats/status/1020298516181147648?s=21

Thanks! Interesting. Would love to get some render times though.

 

[mr.anthonyramos]

Thanks! Interesting. Would love to get some render times though.

Here is another interesting find. That will mum a few people...those who say that the top of the line 2017 15 inch is faster than the i9 and that the base 15 inch 2018 is also faster than the i9 because in this case it really isn’t.

Looks like you’ve got a few videos to watch later @stringerhye

 

[Elektrofone]

Maybe they should rebrand it the i7 2.8 based on the

Here is another interesting find. That will mum a few people...those who say that the top of the line 2017 15 inch is faster than the i9 and that the base 15 inch 2018 is also faster than the i9 because in this case it really isn’t.

Looks like you’ve got a few videos to watch later @stringerhye

Haha. Yeah. They're really stacking up. I really wish people would separate the discussion about throttling vs. performance because they're jumping to incredible conclusions.

 

[anshuvorty]

Haha. Yeah. They're really stacking up. I really wish people would separate the discussion about throttling vs. performance because they're jumping to incredible conclusions.

It's the hivemind mentality.

 

[OC40]

Here is another interesting find. That will mum a few people...those who say that the top of the line 2017 15 inch is faster than the i9 and that the base 15 inch 2018 is also faster than the i9 because in this case it really isn’t.

Looks like you’ve got a few videos to watch later @stringerhye

Closed the video within 12 seconds after multiple poses with duck lips.

 

[Standard]

Closed the video within 12 seconds after multiple poses with duck lips.

Laughed so hard and did the same.

 

[OC40]

Laughed so hard and did the same.

Lol!

 

[sennomulo]

That video no, but this video yes.

He compared the i9 with the 2.6 i7 with a FCP export and the i9 beat it by 50 seconds. And both the i7 and the i9 were throttling. He also mentions that he did other tests with the other MacBooks and the i9 still beats all of them despite the throttling. Now, this of course is with FCP which is greatly optimised for MacOS.

The thing that most concerns me about his test is that, for the small performance gain of the 2.9 i9 over the 2.6 i7, its temperatures hovered in the 90°s while the i7 ran in the 70°s. For me, that makes the i7 an obvious choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue here is not just computational power, it's the raw heat that these things are generating. It can't be good for the longevity of your hardware for it to be hovering around the 100° mark frequently, and I'd much rather have one that stays in the 70°s when the CPU is being taxed.

For me, I don't need an insane amount of computational power. I'm not a professional video editor, I'm just a baker who is willing to spend some extra cash on a well-built laptop with great display, speakers, trackpad, and MacOS. My most computationally taxing needs will be playing light games, honestly. I just want to know I won't fry the system by playing Minecraft for a few hours, and if the base model processor can do that for me, I'm about ready to pull the trigger. But I'm waiting for more conclusive tests than we've seen.

 

[Elektrofone]

The thing that most concerns me about his test is that, for the small performance gain of the 2.9 i9 over the 2.6 i7, its temperatures hovered in the 90°s while the i7 ran in the 70°s. For me, that makes the i7 an obvious choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue here is not just computational power, it's the raw heat that these things are generating. It can't be good for the longevity of your hardware for it to be hovering around the 100° mark frequently, and I'd much rather have one that stays in the 70°s when the CPU is being taxed.

For me, I don't need an insane amount of computational power. I'm not a professional video editor, I'm just a baker who is willing to spend some extra cash on a well-built laptop with great display, speakers, trackpad, and MacOS. My most computationally taxing needs will be playing light games, honestly. I just want to know I won't fry the system by playing Minecraft for a few hours, and if the base model processor can do that for me, I'm about ready to pull the trigger. But I'm waiting for more conclusive tests than we've seen.

That may be true for you and in that case I'd definitely get the base model that runs cooler, but for those of us who use the laptop professionally speed is at the utmost importance. I have AppleCare+ so if it fails within 3 years I'm set.

 

[sennomulo]

That may be true for you and in that case I'd definitely get the base model that runs cooler, but for those of us who use the laptop professionally speed is at the utmost importance. I have AppleCare+ so if it fails within 3 years I'm set.

Yeah, I definitely get the frustration that professional users are feeling with these chips being installed in a chassis that can't make use of their full potential. I really hope they do better in the next iteration for people who need maximum speed, as there is clearly ample room for improvement.

I'm not saying the i7 is the best choice for everybody, but if you're paying that kind of thermal cost for a very modest speed bump, I think it changes the equation for a lot of people looking at the machine. I'm just looking at the temperature readings among all of these tests.

 

[Aea]

Is anybody having problems with their machine discharging under load and connected to power?

I'm having to run two adapters (both 87W) for my battery to charge.

This can't be right.

 

[Elektrofone]

Yeah, I definitely get the frustration that professional users are feeling with these chips being installed in a chassis that can't make use of their full potential. I really hope they do better in the next iteration for people who need maximum speed, as there is clearly ample room for improvement.

I'm not saying the i7 is the best choice for everybody, but if you're paying that kind of thermal cost for a very modest speed bump, I think it changes the equation for a lot of people looking at the machine. I'm just looking at the temperature readings among all of these tests.

It is a bit unreasonable to expect 70 temps at full load during render times though. Even my 2013 MacBook Pro hits in the 90s when rendering in After Effects and the idle temps on my 2018 i9 are around 50 degrees.

 

[blackberrycubed]

Is anybody having problems with their machine discharging under load and connected to power?

I'm having to run two adapters (both 87W) for my battery to charge.

This can't be right.

jesus christ ! #chargegate???

 

[RobbieTT]

Is anybody having problems with their machine discharging under load and connected to power?

I'm having to run two adapters (both 87W) for my battery to charge.

This can't be right.

I did wonder about the effective charging rate when we saw the first throttling results. The machine is limited to 100W total power delivery, the charger is rated at 87W and the power being pulled by the cpu alone is way above the TDP claimed by Intel at 50W+. Under load I just cannot see how the machine can charge the battery whilst the cpu is eating so much power. If anything at peak load the machine must be drawing some power from the battery even when plugged-in.

 

[sennomulo]

It is a bit unreasonable to expect 70 temps at full load during render times though. Even my 2013 MacBook Pro hits in the 90s when rendering in After Effects and the idle temps on my 2018 i9 are around 50 degrees.

Believe it or not, that's cooler than my 2015 13" currently with no apps open except Intel Power Gadget and 3 Safari tabs.

 

[fate0311]

Just ran Cinabench on my i9 and got 100.91 fps and 920cb.

 

[mvp2885]

guys stop panicking, apple will release a software update and you will get 5.67 ghz

 

[surfari]

I purchased an i9 2018 MacBook Pro 15' on Saturday July 14th and picked it up at the Apple Store on the 15th. It has 32 GB of RAM and the 1TB SSD. I have a 2017 MBP 15" 3.1GHz i7 that I returned to Apple for it's 2nd repair since I purchased it. FYI, almost all of the issues were on my (2) 2016 models but I digress. I am very happy with my 2018 i9 and I just read this article on ComputerWorld that lends a lot of credibility to these test that the i9 is slower are not accurate. https://www.computerworld.com/artic...hat-macbook-pro-core-i9-throttling-story.html I've tested the 2 MBP's I own on GeekBench 4 and the i9 beat the i7 on all the tests. It also beat my 2017 iMac 27 4.2ghz i7/24GB/Radeon 580 (8GB)/2TB Fusion on some of them. As son as my 2017 is returned from Apple I'll also post test of Cinebench 15 using the Intel Power Gadget software and re-test Geekbench 4 using Intel Power Gadget.

 

[Aea]

GeekBench 4 is designed in a way that does not measure long-term degradation due to thermal throttling. It would be shocking if that benchmark came in lower for the i9.

 

[Elektrofone]

Does the i9, under normal circumstances, use more battery than the i7? Is there a drastic difference in battery life if you're just browsing the web?