Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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]
- Thread starter M.Rizk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macbook performance pro
- Sort by reaction score
That's ridiculous, and we shouldn't be forced to do that in a brand new machine, marketed as pro, marketed as 2.9GHz base frequency (not happening) and 4.8GHz turbo frequency (not happening)
CPU utilization during installation was max 20%... Why is that even relevant? And its running hot for that task either way, and you really should not need to run fans at max for installation.
Big audio files aren't cpu intensive either, try to bounce big projects... like 60-80 tracks, full of plugins, and at least 5 minutes in length.
[doublepost=1532415586][/doublepost]
every overheating i9 throttled to 800MHz when VRMs overheated.
The fans ran that fast because I set them to. I'm playing around with it.
I just offline-bounced a 00:04:22 project, with 54 tracks (17 VSTs, 37 192khz audio files) around 120 plugins, and took 33 seconds to complete. It had similar performance, cpu utilization only hit 21%.
So, I'll play with bigger files, again, just messing around here. I'm more interested in actual workloads... Not tests that are designed to fail.
Attachments
Last edited:
wonder how it performs on the breaking point. (where all 6 cores are utilised, and some cores are boosting because they need performance). do you have any CPU intensive plugins like 2C Audio B2 or u-he Repro?
Mostly NI, Waves, Xfer plugs, and I'm addicted to Steven Slate's FG-X and their Virtual mix rack, also love Valhalla algo-reverbs. All native. The FG-X in particular is known to be very intensive. More tests need to be done.
Haven't heard of the u-he Repro. How I don't know... Looks awesome. The -5 looks like a Moog Grandmother mod.
Repro-5 is a prophet V recreation. It's frankly the best sounding synth I ever heard in a plugin form, no contest. However, i cannot run more than 10 instances in a project, if i use High-Quality mode then probably 5, on a 2012 Quad Core.
I also have Xfer Serum - great synth, but different flavour and approach then Repro. Also much less CPU intensive.
Valhalla iirc are not as CPU intense, 2C Audio B2 algorithmic is also so high CPU i can't use more than a few per project in order not to get dropouts.
Me too. I’d like to see how it runs a huge music project real time with extremely CPU heavy plugins.
Export times in music are never really an issue for me as we’re talking minutes. However audio dropouts during playback are a real concern.
Very unlikely that these systems will ever turbo boost if all 6 cores are being used at the breaking point. That’s not how turbo boost works with these. It works in a “bursty” fashion, to give apps a short term boost in performance when needed, and when the processor is at about 50c or lower, and if there is power available (both of which are very unlikely if all 6cores are at their breaking point, and the VRMs are throttled to only provide a fraction of power to the processor.)
So in audio some processes cannot be broken into threads, thus "Logic Pro X one core overload" is a common problem, meaning a turbo can help (as long as you don't task too much other cores) but if its unsustainable it can falsely give you the impression that you're running stable, but you're not.
Thinking of it... This might be a separate issues altogether. Turbo really doesnt make sense for audio.
If it’s mostly single-threaded, and the CPU will be at 50c or lower, with VRMs being happy, then it’ll probably boost. With this new MBP, though, I’d be surprised if those conditions were met.
Apple will probably let you test it on a display system in an Apple Store, especially if a purchase by you is contingent on running such tests.
You're confused a bit about the i7/i9. The 50C or lower for turbo boost is not really for turbo boost. It's for the extra turbo boost that the i9 purports to deliver over the i7. And you're right: that situation is very rare, which is why the i9 is a ******** chip to prey on ill-informed consumers.
Ah yes. And so have other reviewers who have experienced this drop to 800ghz (which is actuallyy present in all 2018 15 inch models and we even have other reviewers who explain why it drops (a few different reasons).
This guy literally, watched other reviews, comments, took notes of important or bits that he himself deemed important and then rehashed everything into his own review. Nothing new or important to watch. We are getting more information here in these forums. I wasted 3 minutes of my life because 3 minutes into the video I turned it off.
[doublepost=1532421968][/doublepost]
Well said but at the end of the day, we can leave them to their opinions, I think we pretty much know who will have the last laugh here.
Correct me if I am wrong, but even without the TDP fix, the MBP is able to maintain the base frequency on average. CPU cooling is certainly sufficient for that. And if you want the 4.8Ghz turbo... well, buy a 4.5kg MSI gaming laptop, since that is the only one that manages to deliver it consistently.
Because 20% of CPU utilisation means over 100% single core utilisation. You know, the scenario where you will see turbo boost happening.
No, its not. It drops to 800MHz frequently when VRMs overheat. Also it cannot maintain even 2.8 GHz clock (-0.1GHz), it drops to 2-2.2 often.
No, i don't need or want 4.8GHz turbo, I'd much prefer the 2186M Xeon chip, nerfed to 2.7GHz base and 4GHz turbo and advertised as such.
Nobody asked them to advertise full-speed i9 if they can't deliver it.
iMac Pro has a Xeon W chip (W-2150B) clocked at 3.0GHz, while W-2150 (same chip, fits as a drop-in in iMac Pro and works) is officially clocked at 3.3GHz. Nobody complained about that, because it is what it is, and delivers what it advertises.
I think there is a major confusion going on here. Now, I am probably one of more active "Apple defenders" on these forums. But I don't think its because of some unreasonable emotional attachment, but exactly because I am very much aware of my experience.
You say that these last few years is like being treated at a beta tester. Why last few years? That was ALWAYS Apple's modus operandi, as long as I can remember. They always released products (both software and hardware) very early and tweaked the designs based on the experience and feedback.
I find it quite funny that people now complain about bugs in current macOS releases and glorify "old good days", completely forgetting that Snow Leopard shipped with bugs that were deleting user home forders or a Safari and Mail versions that was constantly crashing. People complain about current Macs, how they are thin and light and use underpowered hardware and how things were so much better for Pros when the 17" was still there, completely ignoring the facts that the 17" had identical hardware to the 15" or that Apple has never shipped more powerful components (relative to what is available). I've also seen people complain that the MacBook Pro used to be a powerful workstation, where now its just an ultrabook toy — completely ignoring that the MBP was always marketed by Apple as a thin and light flexible business computer and that there were much more powerful machines available before, during, and after MBP was released (like the HP EliteBook).
In the end, the reason why I "defend" Apple is simply because I remember the history of their products and I see that what they have been doing for the last 10-15 years is pretty much consistent. They still make same mistakes (where they should totally step up their game, no questions), but most importantly for me, their vision has not changed. And that is why I continue buying their computers. Because I can't find anything else on the market that would suit my needs better.
Sadly such behavior is exactly why others tend to ridicule those who use the Mac...
Q-6
Well, my laptop should arrive in an hour or so, I'll test it out.
Oh, I completely agree. But given that all the popular competitors are putting the i9 in their thin laptops (where it will throttle too), Apple would probably take a bigger hit to their reputation by skipping the i9. I have no doubt that they will release a software fix that will restrict the TDP (or something similar), which will stabilise the performance.
I was also hoping that Apple would use Xeons in the MBP, that would be a great publicity move, if nothing else. Of course, it wouldn't fix anything, since the Xeons are the same CPUs (probably just tested more carefully) and would have had same issues...
they have cTDP of 35W listed tho, and perhaps they could've have nerfed them without getting so much flak, because almost no other laptops use them.
seems like they almost wanted to appeal more to gamers than pros?
2186M (i9 equivalent) is about 50$ more according to intel, so not much, probably 100$ more than i9.
This is so true. They don't do market research, they make things that they think will be insanely great. Sometimes they are (iPhone, PowerMac G5/MacPro original, iPod) and sometimes not so much (Hockey puck iMac mouse, G4 cube [which did look sweet, but wasn't upgradable sound familiar?], toilet seat iBook) and some were just before their time (Newton, the war on ports). And you're right, it is about the experience and about the tradeoffs. Life is about choices, you can't always get everything you want. If you want the most processing power that you can get, you probably shouldn't get a Mac. If you want a good balance between performance and a well-built and portable form factor, than maybe Apple is a good choice. They can't please everyone and have configurations and products for every possible use (think of all the versions of windows 7) - instead of having 3 or 4 great products you'll have 3 or 4 dozen piles of garbage. And I'm loyal to Apple because there is no other alternative that I'd rather use - I use a PC at work and it is the most miserable thing ever. I mean, they still don't even have the plug-and-play thing right, it's a hot mess. You can just tell their engineers just don't care that much about the user experience... look no further than office.
With that said, I think Apples focus has maybe drifted somewhat from where 25 year Mac users like myself would like. I'd like to see more focus on the computers, software and less focus on poo faces and watch straps. I also don't like to see them erode the complete, integrated experience that allows everything to just work. Go watch some of the early keynotes following Jobs' return - that was their strategy and that's what saved the company. It worked then and I think its just as important today, which is why the gradual merging of macOS and iOS I think is a good thing. I hated to see AirPort, Aperture, and the display lines get the axe though.
Last edited:
It's not really about bugs, they always existed. I am going by experiences, I am thinking of my experience with my first Apple product (iPod mini - paid extra to get it in UK well before release via US
), my first iPhone (4S), my first Macbook (mid-2014) - I had good experiences. There were issues sure, but I also have used Android/Windows a lot in my lifetime and there were issues here and there too. However in terms of satisfaction, I was mostly happy with those products - I don't think the same of the 12" MacBook or the 2016 model I bought (which were returned). My experience with the iPhone's after iPhone 4S was not as great as it was with 4S either, with iOS appearing to have more bugs than I experienced in either the iOS or Android platform. I could also mention a lot about how I feel the evolution of the OS's were lacklustre.I think you are falling in to the trap as Rossman states, of denying people's experiences.
Frankly, Apple could afford to put Xeons into the MBP at the prices they ask now. At least it would give them some sort of justitication why the machines are so expensive
In all seriousness, the Xeons cost only $40 more