2018 i9 MacBook Pro throttling discussion [merged]

[fokmik]

I have the Alienware 15" with i9...and...figure it, it does run hot too under heavy load in cpu..and that chassis is a lot bigger...i dont know what to think about...its Intel mess up...you really need some big vents and perfect thermal...(when gpu come in place it will be some less heat, but only cpu is used...i get around 88C-92C and that shell is hot to touch)

 

[pkouame]

This is by far one of the best explanations/reviews I’ve heard so far. Yeah sure it throttles but is it a slouch? No. Is the 2017 top spec 15 inch faster? No. Is the 2018 i7 faster? No.

Will the i9 run hotter? Yes. Is there an issue with Apple’s thermal build on the chassis? Yes. Is the i9 the best performing MacBook Pro you can buy? Yes. Is the i9 needed for everyone...of course not.

@stringerhye I think we can keep an eye on this guy who has done a flurry of different tests with different applications and different workflows.

And like clockwork...the finger gets pointed back at Adobe Premiere and Intel. Apple comes out smelling like a rose...

Dell has a 32Gb Core i9 1TB SSD at a cool $1K less - expandable and no slouch on the eyes - runs Premiere without frying my board - has a functional keyboard that doesn't lock up on a bread crumb - and still some enable and encourage bad behavior. Priceless.

If I'm a Premiere professional all this says is run don't walk to Windows. Sad.

Apple - no hate just a bit of constructive advice - just build the power user machine you've been promising for 6 years now: an expandable mac pro with ample headroom to grow. And maybe, just may be, these yearly benchmark and thermal wars will end.

 

[Lobwedgephil]

I will be honest, I am pretty concerned based on what I have seen, but I am seeing it objectively and both ways. The i9 is clearly not performing as expected, lots of throttling, heat, etc. But it is also performing faster and better in real world tests then any other model, which should be expected.

Now I have one, and have since last Saturday, the battery is blowing away my 2016 model, which is nice. I haven't stress tested it like y'all, just used it for my work purposes. Run several VM's and large databases, which my 2016 did okay, just struggled a bit, but everything been lightning fast for me. So I'm not video like most here, but my databases usually make a Mac crawl, but have had no issues so far with the i9. Would the i7 work also for me, probably just a bit slower, but it is worth it to me. I do think this will be partially resolved with firmware and software updates, guess we will see. Just wanted to post a real world experience where the computer is working very well for someone.

 

[fate0311]

I film and edit adult films and the i9 has cut my work flow time by a third. At the end of the day when it cums time to tally up all the minutes I have saved here and there it really takes a load off.

 

[mr.anthonyramos]

And like clockwork...the finger gets pointed back at Adobe Premiere and Intel. Apple comes out smelling like a rose...

Dell has a 32Gb Core i9 1TB SSD at a cool $1K less - expandable and no slouch on the eyes - runs Premiere without frying my board - has a functional keyboard that doesn't lock up on a bread crumb - and still some enable and encourage bad behavior. Priceless.

If I'm a Premiere professional all this says is run don't walk to Windows. Sad.

Apple - no hate just a bit of constructive advice - just build the power user machine you've been promising for 6 years now: an expandable mac pro with ample headroom to grow. And maybe, just may be, these yearly benchmark and thermal wars will end.

Your post doesn’t make much sense. Why?

Firstly Apple isn’t coming out as a “rose”. Reviewers, experts and personal users such as myself do aknowledge the fact that Apple needs to do something with its thermals. That’s agreeable.

Ah the Achilles Heel Adobe Premier Pro. Yes, it’s obvious and it is know how unoptimized it is for Mac OS but as we can see, tests still show that the i9 is still performing, not to it’s full potential but some of us here, actually enjoy Mac OS and if you search the treads for one of my posts, I actually went XPS 15 inch for a bit and after a few months of other issues, told myself, okay I miss Mac OS.

It’s all a give and take. To each his/her own. I’d rather have the thinner form factor of the MacBook Pro, money isn’t an issue, and of course MacOS.

You could say some people could say well for 150,000USD I could get better performance with a Nissan GTR why spend 300,000USD on a Lamborghini that is slower, doesn’t have any trunk space, has an expensive upkeep, it overheats easily etc. this argument is getting old.
[doublepost=1532159117][/doublepost]

I film and edit adult films and the i9 has cut my work flow time by a third. At the end of the day when it cums time to tally up all the minutes I have saved here and there it really takes a load off.

Great!

PS are you hiring actors? Where do I sign up?
[doublepost=1532159206][/doublepost]

I will be honest, I am pretty concerned based on what I have seen, but I am seeing it objectively and both ways. The i9 is clearly not performing as expected, lots of throttling, heat, etc. But it is also performing faster and better in real world tests then any other model, which should be expected.

Now I have one, and have since last Saturday, the battery is blowing away my 2016 model, which is nice. I haven't stress tested it like y'all, just used it for my work purposes. Run several VM's and large databases, which my 2016 did okay, just struggled a bit, but everything been lightning fast for me. So I'm not video like most here, but my databases usually make a Mac crawl, but have had no issues so far with the i9. Would the i7 work also for me, probably just a bit slower, but it is worth it to me. I do think this will be partially resolved with firmware and software updates, guess we will see. Just wanted to post a real world experience where the computer is working very well for someone.

Exactly, what I am pointing out. To each his/her own! Glad that it’s been working out for you. Here’s to hoping we could get more potential out of it once Apple releases an update.

 

[semajm85]

Another review of sorts. It's the 2.6 i7 though but I enjoy this dudes observations.

 

[Queen6]

There is no need for the 8750H to pull 90W. It's likely just Intel's increased the power limit to an unreasonable height in case someone wants to put this under water. Either way, the idea that this CPU needs 90W to run is ridiculous, and if anything the power limit isn't working properly. Again, software fix.
[doublepost=1532142409][/doublepost]
This has nothing to do with physics. It's all Engineering.

Apple's thermal solution is good for it's size. Not as good as it could be, but the idea that this CPU (with the same TDP) is going to definitely perform much worse than an older CPU with less cores (with the same TDP) is ridiculous.

This is mostly a software or firmware issue.

I own a very performant W10 notebook with the 8750H. Under a massive load such as Prime95 Small FFT stress test the CPU package can exceed 86W.

Asus's has set the CPU power limit at 45W for PL-1 & 90W FOR PL-2. The notebook deals with this in it's stride thx to a solid cooling solution. The i9 can exceed 150W for PL-2 if conditions allow.

So It's not not as rediculous as you think. Have doubts try for yourself, ThrottleStop or HWinfo64 will reveal the same, and part of Apple's problem in the MBP's chassis.

One could reduce the PL-2 power limit, but then again it would cripple performance...

Q-6

 

[Ploki]

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/90nujo/intel_has_now_removed_the_intel_power_gadget_for/

Intel removed power gadget...

 

[maflynn]

Do you have an i9 or one of the i7’s?

i7 2.2Ghz model

 

[Eason85]

If your i9 isn't hitting turbo clocks then there is literally no reason to have it. The turbo clocks are limited by power and heat, and all the intel chips operate the same way. Thus, because apple's thermal design is so aenemic, a 2.2 GHz base clock, 2.7 GHz, and 2.9 GHz base clock will all turbo to roughly the same speed. It might be able to score a bit better in short benchmarks, but make no mistake: if you aren't hitting turbo on the i9 then you'd be getting equal performance with one of the i7 CPUs. My XPS 15 with the i7-8750H can run 12 thread audio-analysis loads at 3.7Ghz At 55 w indefinitely (-140mv undervolt). Those are the kind of frequencies you SHOULD be expecting with a base coffee lake i7.

 

[mr.anthonyramos]

If your i9 isn't hitting turbo clocks then there is literally no reason to have it. The turbo clocks are limited by power and heat, and all the intel chips operate the same way. Thus, because apple's thermal design is so aenemic, a 2.2 GHz base clock, 2.7 GHz, and 2.9 GHz base clock will all turbo to roughly the same speed. It might be able to score a bit better in short benchmarks, but make no mistake: if you aren't hitting turbo on the i9 then you'd be getting equal performance with one of the i7 CPUs. My XPS 15 with the i7-8750H can run 12 thread analysis loads at 3.7Ghz At 55 w indefinitely (-140mv undervolt). Those are the kind of frequencies you SHOULD be expecting with a base coffee lake i7.

Umm no. Have you watched or read the reviews. Yes it isn’t hitting its turbo speeds BUT the i9 still outperforms both the 2018 i7s.
[doublepost=1532167958][/doublepost]

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/90nujo/intel_has_now_removed_the_intel_power_gadget_for/

Intel removed power gadget...

Now this is interesting. Why? Because an update is needed? Or Apple asked them to take it down so that they could issue a fix first.

 

[maflynn]

If you check out my post a few up there’s a link to notebookcheck who discovered that the problem seems to be Apple’s traditional use of temperature only as a throttle, rather than TDP and temps like everyone else. They used that utility (http://volta.garymathews.com/) to massively improve the situation by locking the TDP. There’s a free trial, so no risk.

I was reading those articles, I must have miss that reference Thanks for the link

 

[fate0311]

Hahahaha Intel is trolling the you tubers

 

[Ploki]

Umm no. Have you watched or read the reviews. Yes it isn’t hitting its turbo speeds BUT the i9 still outperforms both the 2018 i7s.
[doublepost=1532167958][/doublepost]

Now this is interesting. Why? Because an update is needed? Or Apple asked them to take it down so that they could issue a fix first.

I suspect the latter usually software is not taken down while waiting for an update, also it works fine... what doesnt work fine is the i9 chips in macbooks.

Pure speculation but the underperformance fiasco is obviously generating a lot of bad rep for both apple AND intel.

 

[Eason85]

Umm no. Have you watched or read the reviews. Yes it isn’t hitting its turbo speeds BUT the i9 still outperforms both the 2018 i7s.
[doublepost=1532167958][/doublepost]

Now this is interesting. Why? Because an update is needed? Or Apple asked them to take it down so that they could issue a fix first.

If it is any faster, it's because the operation is helped by the cache. At the end of the day, even the i9 is performing 25% slower than the i7 does in a laptop like the XPS 15 9570. "but it's faster than last year" is not an excuse, because it's still a crime to cripple these chips with a tiny single-pipe cooler. Not to mention the increased rate of failure with the chips and related components caused by 100c temps. Exactly how much shorter the laptops will last isn't an exact science, but it's a sure thing a laptop running at 100C will not last as long as one that only hits 80.

 

[CB98]

Can someone explain this comment to me? It’s a comment from Jonathan Morrison’s latest i9 video...

‘The i7 model that this i9 lost to in Dave’s video was not even the 2018 i7. It was the 2017 quad core i7. Jonathan Morrison ignored that and compared the 2018 i7, which is literally the same chip as the i9 but binned worse and requiring more voltage therefore producing more heat and throttling more. Of course the i9 would win in this comparison.’

Is this really the case, and going by this argument is the i9 worth it?

And a link to the video:

 

[M.Rizk]

The Notebookcheck article is really eye opening. I truly believe the 2.6 GHz will benefit the most from using Volta as it is not as power hungry as the i9. They were not even using any fan control and the CPU pushed from 2.6 (never went under) to an almost stable 3.4 GHz sometimes even pushing to higher. I really don’t think I can ask for more in a MacBook Pro. I think the idea of getting one is finally back on the table. Even though this is not the perfect solution, it is better than keeping my current 2011 MBP.

I still believe the i9 will benefit from this solution and still outperform the i7 btw. If Volta can be used to limit it to something higher than 45W (maybe 55W) + some basic fan control you can unleash a true monster out of the i9.

I am really happy to see this doable with software. I am really excited now like a 9 year old with a piece of candy (or winning in Fortnite)

 

[The Mercurian]

The Notebookcheck article is really eye opening. I truly believe the 2.6 GHz will benefit the most from using Volta as it is not as power hungry as the i9. They were not even using any fan control and the CPU pushed from 2.6 (never went under) to an almost stable 3.4 GHz sometimes even pushing to higher. I really don’t think I can ask for more in a MacBook Pro. I think the idea of getting one is finally back on the table. Even though this is not the perfect solution, it is better than keeping my current 2011 MBP.

I still believe the i9 will benefit from this solution and still outperform the i7 btw. If Volta can be used to limit it to something higher than 45W (maybe 55W) + some basic fan control you can unleash a true monster out of the i9.

I am really happy to see this doable with software. I am really excited now like a 9 year old with a piece of candy (or winning in Fortnite)

Yeah it is an encouraging finding. But I'd wait and see still. Ideally, Apple would learn from that and implement a firmware update. But part of me thinks they are more likely to block the volta app than do something sensible. Did you see intel have removed the Power Gadget for mac now ?

 

[M.Rizk]

If it is any faster, it's because the operation is helped by the cache. At the end of the day, even the i9 is performing 25% slower than the i7 does in a laptop like the XPS 15 9570. "but it's faster than last year" is not an excuse, because it's still a crime to cripple these chips with a tiny single-pipe cooler. Not to mention the increased rate of failure with the chips and related components caused by 100c temps. Exactly how much shorter the laptops will last isn't an exact science, but it's a sure thing a laptop running at 100C will not last as long as one that only hits 80.

Did Apple MBP ever beat a Windows laptop with the same CPU? I think the answer is no, so I am not really sure why our expectations are going to change all of a sudden.

We know they won’t perform as good but not much worse either. We are buying an extremely slim and good looking laptop and that has some drawbacks.
[doublepost=1532169163][/doublepost]

Yeah it is an encouraging finding. But I'd wait and see still. Ideally, Apple would learn from that and implement a firmware update. But part of me thinks they are more likely to block the volta app than do something sensible. Did you see intel have removed the Power Gadget for mac now ?

I did. I am shocked. I personally took two backups of the Intel Power Gadget in case I ever need it.

 

[ugru]

Umm no. Have you watched or read the reviews. Yes it isn’t hitting its turbo speeds BUT the i9 still outperforms both the 2018 i7s.
[doublepost=1532167958][/doublepost]

Now this is interesting. Why? Because an update is needed? Or Apple asked them to take it down so that they could issue a fix first.

Pathetic, if true...

Like when apple removed the "remaining time" in the battery indicator to "solve" the low battery life bug for the 2016 rMBP...

If you cannot see the CPU throttle the problem is not there...

 

[maflynn]

They used that utility (http://volta.garymathews.com/) to massively improve the situation by locking the TDP. There’s a free trial, so no risk.

I just finished playing with it, I didn't really see much of a difference . I think I'll stick with the Turbo Boost Switcher because it works without needing to enter csrutil enable --without kext. I'd rather not turn that off in my system

 

[CB98]

totally agree with the observations made in the video.

sadly i've decided to return my i9 and get the 2.6 i7....i tried everything from disabling turbo, to putting a fixed TDP and all with good results....but my brain couldnt wrap around spending another $400.

i wanted a lower thermal envelope as well as better battery life. a good buddy of mine with a similar workflow sees that with his i7 2.6 so thats how i decided.

good luck i9 users. i certainly hope that Apple will release something to mitigate this without intervention from the users. till then, peace.

How much RAM do you have in your build?

 

[M.Rizk]

Another review of sorts. It's the 2.6 i7 though but I enjoy this dudes observations.

The CPU is not even throttling at all while gaming! The 2.6 i7 is pushing stable 4 GHz! And that’s without any modifications whatsoever!

 

[content]

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/90nujo/intel_has_now_removed_the_intel_power_gadget_for/

Intel removed power gadget...

This is really getting bad... Apple needs to address the problem, not hide it from sight...

 

[ESA]

Intel has not taken it away. Just some conspiracy

https://software.intel.com/file/641033/download