Yeah, you're right. It's Intel's fault that the MacBook is overheating!!!
Jesus Christ....
Again, this will only motivate Apple to go even thinner and make cooling even more inadequate than it already is. ARM isn't a solution and neither is 10nm. The only solution is for Apple to get different priorities.
It's Apple's fault 100%. Stop it.Well, you're essentially saying that Apple should redesign its notebooks every year when Intel comes out with new processors that are worse-performing per watt.
It's obvious why Apple would prefer to roll its own processors so they can't be shafted by Intel in running scared mode. It's a continuing trend (like worse integrated graphics on successor chips) they'd be fools to ignore and pretend that it's just a one-off thing.
This doesn't absolve Apple of not building more tolerances into their design, people have been talking about that for years, but it's ridiculous to fault Apple entirely here.
It's not dumb, plenty of notebooks rocking these chips without a problem. Just because a poorly designed laptop is running this chip like shit, doesn't mean others will.
If anything, your logic is flawed.
You think it's because it's a 45w chip? My 2016 MBP 15" has a 45w chip in it and it doesn't throttle in any appreciable way. It really doesn't even get that hot unless I'm running the GPU hard at the same time.What are you even talking about? The i9 wasn't designed for Ultrabooks. It's not Intel's fault, it's Apple's fault for putting a 45w chip inside such a tiny enclosure with a shitty cooling solution.
It would be the same if other manufacturer did the same. It's not Intel's fault, it's on the manufacturer.
Also, Intel's Ultrabook chips carry the "U" suffix
And what do you guys want me to say? It's the truth. Apple's obsession with thinness and a mediocre cooling solution lead to this.
Do I need one? When it's demonstrated that it can't even handle the base clock of the chip?You think it's because it's a 45w chip? My 2016 MBP 15" has a 45w chip in it and it doesn't throttle in any appreciable way. It really doesn't even get that hot unless I'm running the GPU hard at the same time.
Did Apple design my laptop to handle a 45w chip properly in 2016 and now they magically can't do it in 2018? I don't think so. I think it's a case of this new i9 chip running particularly hot.
Now that's not a good situation for Apple to release it like this, and I'm not saying they don't deserve some blame, but their laptop has demonstrated it can handle a 45w CPU. Calling it a "shitty" cooling design is ridiculous. Do you own one?
So you don't have experience with one but you're gonna go out there and say it's just a shit cooling design and rail on Apple post after post? Ok.Do I need one? When it's demonstrated that it can't even handle the base clock of the chip?
And yes, it's shitty if, as I said, can't handle base clocks.
And, no, I don't fully think it's because of the 45w tdp.
And what else? What's your problem? The cooling solution is shit for these chips, no way around it. It was decent for the older models, that I won't deny, and if you search this thread, you'll see me changing my perception of the cooling solution in last years model.So you don't have experience with one but you're gonna go out there and say it's just a shit cooling design and rail on Apple post after post? Ok.
If you don't even care about this machine why are you posting so much shit about it? I'm not sure what we're trying to tell you is actually getting through.
You could definitely undervolt the CPU to get better performance.They make it sound like you (or Apple) could possibly in the future turn the fans on more often to get better performance.
Unlikely. Unless the bill it is a "macbook retro" and bring back more ports.
If rumours are true aren't they planning on switching to their own chips at some pointWould a low power Ryzen 2700 equivalent also throttle in their chassis? Would Apple consider switching to AMD?
Weight and design. A thinner laptop is a lighter laptop, and a lighter laptop is more portable. And a thinner laptop is sleeker. After all, design is a major component of Apple's brand.Thinness in laptops is such an interesting goal to chase. Like, in phones I get it, they go in your pocket so you want them to be unobtrusive. But why does a laptop need to be wafer-thin? Strictly aesthetics?
They make it sound like you (or Apple) could possibly in the future turn the fans on more often to get better performance.
https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/18/how-macbook-pro-throttles-with-final-cut-pro-x/Really? Show me the tests. Your probably right but I want to see it.
I love the first paragraph in the article you linked:Blaming Intel really? I didn't know Intel held a gun to Apple's head and forced them to use these processors in inadequate cooling solution.
https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/18/how-macbook-pro-throttles-with-final-cut-pro-x/
It's especially funny after tests showed the new Macbooks perform quite a bit worse than comparable products by their competitors.It seems like there's always some controversy surrounding new Apple hardware. These devices are some of the most popular in the world, which means that they're bound to get closely scrutinized, perhaps more so than any other tech product on earth.
It's true for the most part. They might not be "scrutinized" more but if this was a non-Apple product the amount of youtube videos and blog posts being written about the issue would be far less. Or at least the amount of traffic to said articles would be less.I love the first paragraph in the article you linked:
It's especially funny after tests showed the new Macbooks perform quite a bit worse than comparable products by their competitors.
I don't care about thinness. I care about weight. I would love for my MBP to be .5 to 1lb lighter.Thinness in laptops is such an interesting goal to chase. Like, in phones I get it, they go in your pocket so you want them to be unobtrusive. But why does a laptop need to be wafer-thin? Strictly aesthetics?
With all the issues Apple seems to be having with their products, I really wonder what their testing is lately.
It can't be said enough: Apple post-Jobs is not a properly ran company, and it shows in the lack of quality, lack of innovation, poor design, etc. They desperately need new management, people with new ideas, and more engineering focused leaders. The current Apple is destined for a big fall if they don't change soon.
Sticky this post.
Nailed it.
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/20/intel-cannonlake-end-of-2018-delay/
The thermal constraints that these slim and thin chassis have are such a bottleneck for performance.
With windows you still have a option to go for a laptop with a thicker chassis and a high end GPU (even though most coffee lake H proc's reach high thermals: i.e: Aorus X9 DT, Razer Blade, MSI GS65, Dell XPS, Alienware 15 R4).
Mac laptops are a two base SKU's that apple is adamant to change when a generation is introduced. So when your chassis is already that constrained, you have to redesign your approach.
It's either do or die for Apple with this gen and if they did a internal redesign over the course of this gen that would be dirty.
Unlikely. Unless the bill it is a "macbook retro" and bring back more ports.
Lo and behold, the dust is safely sequestered at the edges of the membrane, leaving the mechanism fairly sheltered. The holes in the membrane allow the keycap clips to pass through, but are covered by the cap itself, blocking dust ingress. The previous-gen butterfly keys are far less protected, and are almost immediately flooded with our glowing granules. On the 2018 keyboard, with the addition of more particulate and some aggressive typing, the dust eventually penetrates under the sheltered clips, and gets on top of the switch—so the ingress-proofing isn't foolproof just yet. Time will tell how long the barrier will hold up.
Thanks! I think it's pretty interesting to see the progression Intel's chips have taken as Apple's Touch Bar chassis design is decently suited for cooling Intel's previous chips. NotebookCheck's reviews of the 2016 and 2017 Touch Bar MBPs all note that there was no throttling (albeit internally they ran hot) as Skylake to Kaby Lake R operated within Apple's specs: dissapation of… let's say 50 W worth of heat to accommodate 45 W processors. Then Intel gets desperate with the competition from AMD, comes along to OEMs handing them chips that can draw up to 105 W of power! That is far beyond the expectations OEMs had when designing their ever thinner ultrabooks as Intel was supposed to be pursuing lower power expenditures, not all of a sudden be raising them. (There's a nice, detailed technical analysis over on Reddit about all this.)
This most recent generation of ultrabooks is some cynical marketing ploy. Intel knows that they have to remain competitive in the eyes of shareholders and consumers who are looking for Intel to stay ahead of AMD, so Intel decides to shove in 2 extra power hungry cores to stave off the appearence of stagnation. Likewise, Apple has to maintain the appearance of competivieness and provide the "latest and greatest" new processors in their products. Both companies know that their typical customers are not hardware geeks and probably not going to notice the pitfalls of these particular hardware choices. There was no way any laptop manufactuer was going to "regress" to a thicker design as more power efficient chips are right around the corner.
This whole debacle is just a small speedbump to Intel and Apple in the big scheme of things. If Intel doesn't fuck up their timeline again (they already fired their CEO over all this and some other fuck ups), Apple and other laptop manufacturers are looking ahead to Intel's 10 nm chips that will return power usage back to normal levels and probably give a nice performance increase to boot. By this time next year, reviewers are probably going to be ooing and awwing at the "dramatic" speed increases from Intel's more power efficent chips and promptly forget that there was ever a problem to begin with. Apple will then design a new, thinner chassis for 2020 that's just thick enough to handle these more power efficent 10 nm chips with the expectation that Intel is back on the quest towards further power effciency as they pursue the shrink to 7 nm chips.
As others have mentioned the rumors, Intel's recent unreliability to hit key product milestones and their penchant to concoct ridiculous stopgap solutions has probably prompted Apple to pursue in-house hardware solutions so that they don't have to have their hardware design beholden to the fluctuating specs of a third party.
If rumours are true aren't they planning on switching to their own chips at some point
There are plenty of examples of engineering fuck-ups, even cooling-related fuck-ups, all through the Jobs-era as well.
Tim Cook makes no engineering or design decisions, anyway.
The screw ups are getting bigger and more inexplicable. A lot of it I think has to do with Apple under-engineering designs and not putting in the requisite components for cost reasons. Under Jobs, most screw ups were related to overly ambitious designs. There's no reason for a well established design like the MacBook Pro have overheating problems like this.
Tim Cook does implement organizational structures, and it is clear he is not putting enough resources into their engineering teams. Cook is also nearly incapable of taking chances, and since he took over the level and amount of innovation has really dropped off. He is definitely a good finance guy, and that's why Apple has stayed so profitable. However, this won't last much longer if Apple doesn't reform itself.
Yeah I agree with you on the how much better things used to be under Jobs being some selective memory.You missed the "Windtunnel" PowerMac G4s where they totally failed to build an adequate cooling solution that the machines became the loudest Macs ever; people were constructing quiet boxes to try and cut down on the noise. Or the G5s, which were prone to overheating iMacs in their original incarnation or else shipped with liquid cooling that leaked everywhere. Or the original MacBook Air, which thermally throttled so often one of its cores would shut off entirely. I'm not really sure what makes those "overly ambitious designs" when the problem with these chips is that Intel failed to deliver on promised roadmaps and created a chip that draws way more than rated TDP. Wouldn't that have made Apple overly ambitious for not building in more headroom for these sorts of possible problems?
A chance-averse Time Cook wouldn't have okayed the 2013 Mac Pro. Yeah, it ended up being an evolutionary dead end, but you can't expect people to 100% be correct with their chances. The possibility of failure is right there in the definition of the word.
People arguing "this wouldn't have happened under Jobs" are almost always working with a very selective reading of Apple under his watch.
You missed the "Windtunnel" PowerMac G4s where they totally failed to build an adequate cooling solution that the machines became the loudest Macs ever; people were constructing quiet boxes to try and cut down on the noise. Or the G5s, which were prone to overheating iMacs in their original incarnation or else shipped with liquid cooling that leaked everywhere. Or the original MacBook Air, which thermally throttled so often one of its cores would shut off entirely. I'm not really sure what makes those "overly ambitious designs" when the problem with these chips is that Intel failed to deliver on promised roadmaps and created a chip that draws way more than rated TDP. Wouldn't that have made Apple overly ambitious for not building in more headroom for these sorts of possible problems?
A chance-averse Time Cook wouldn't have okayed the 2013 Mac Pro. Yeah, it ended up being an evolutionary dead end, but you can't expect people to 100% be correct with their chances. The possibility of failure is right there in the definition of the word.
People arguing "this wouldn't have happened under Jobs" are almost always working with a very selective reading of Apple under his watch.
This has been a issue with Macbooks for awhile now. My 2015 would push 70-80c just watching youtube videos and would hit 105c under heavy load before it throttled back. I fixed some of that issue with opening it up and replacing the shit tier paste Apple uses with quality stuff. They also dont allow the fans to spin faster than 1500rpm until the cpu hits north of 70c. Even at 90+ new macbook fans dont hit max speed.
Also the heatsink and pipes inside these Macbook pro's are a joke.
too thin for new processors? come on apple.
Looks like I'll wait for whatever the new Mac Mini or Mac Pro end up being, or maybe next year's refresh. Is intel finally gonna release 10nm next year?
Should I even bother with the i7 15 inch, or should I just stay with i5 13 inch?