MacBook Pro 2018 Refresh (Announced) (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

I will have to try and find the article.

Allegedly, if you are just using the laptop for general use the i7 is preferable as the i9, which is meant for heavy-duty editing, actually slows down clock speed.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge than I will clock in on this remark.

 

[dpippel]

The i9 probably uses more juice than the i7 as well, which would result in less battery time.

 

[JohnRice]

My understanding is that the i7 is mainly a benefit for video processing, CAD/CAM and maybe gaming. Unless something has changed, the hyperthreading has no benefit for photo processing or most other activities. So, for anyone not doing video or other rendering apps, you don't really get a benefit from the i7 or the i9. After Ron's post, I was trying to find what's the difference in the i9 and the i7. the main thing is more cores, which should be a benefit for pretty much anything. Beyond that, I haven't had much luck deciphering it.

 

[DaveF]

I will have to try and find the article.

Allegedly, if you are just using the laptop for general use the i7 is preferable as the i9, which is meant for heavy-duty editing, actually slows down clock speed.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge than I will clock in on this remark.

Higher core-count CPUs such as Xeons and even i9 trade off clock speed for the core count. So a 12 core i9 could have lower speeds across several cores compared to a 10 core i7. But here, both i7 and i9 choice for the MBP both have 6 cores. So to my meager understanding, I’d expect the i9 to be faster in all ways than the i7. But I’m not expert, so do your research before spending $3500 on a laptop

2.6GHz 6-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.3GHz, with 9MB shared L3 cache

Configurable to 2.9GHz 6-core Intel Core i9, Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz, with 12MB shared L3 cache

 

[Carlo_M]

Ron, Dave's mostly hit the nail on the head. Multi-core at lower clock speeds will perform slower on single-core processes compared to a higher clock speed CPU with less cores (all other things being equal, i.e. assuming it's in the same product line). Most common programs can use multiple CPU cores, and those that are still single-core are usually older (or "simpler") programs where you aren't going to notice the 0.1 - 0.3 Ghz difference between processors.

Looking at the 15" Macbook Pro specs, the difference between the i7 and i9 for the 2 major price points are:

$2399

• 2.2GHz 6-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.1GHz, with 9MB shared L3 cache
• Configurable to 2.9GHz 6-core Intel Core i9, Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz, with 12MB shared L3 cache

$2799

• 2.6GHz 6-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.3GHz, with 9MB shared L3 cache
• Configurable to 2.9GHz 6-core Intel Core i9, Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz, with 12MB shared L3 cache

I see in both "configurable to" i9 options, both the base clock speed and the "Turbo Boost" clock speed are higher than the i7 option. Also, the core count is the same. So there "less cores, higher clock speed" isn't in play here, as the i7 option has the identical number of cores (6) and overall slower clock speeds for both base and "turbo" modes in comparison to the available i9 counterpart.

In all honesty, unless you're doing the most punishing tasks, repeatedly (i.e. rendering 4K video, recording studio-level audio with many plug-ins, 3D graphics creation and modeling, or managing huge--in both file size and numbers--RAW files and applying complex processes on them) the vast majority of users won't be able to tell the difference between the $2400 and the $4000 build.

 

[JohnRice]

Yeah, typically some of those upgrades with Apple don't make financial sense. There are other differences between the $2.4K and $2.8k configurations that can be worth it, but stepping up to the i9 might not be for most people. With the current iMac, upgrading the processor takes you from an i5 to an i7, which makes a huge difference with certain uses, so in that case it can be a huge boost. I'm not certain the i9 step-up has much benefit, other than the basic 10% increase in clock speed.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

There was only a $300 difference to jump from the i7 to 19 when I started with the most expensive base configuration.

So, for $300 I took the plunge.

I very much appreciate the explanations you guys provided, however!

 

[Mark Booth]

Uh oh, report that the new 15” MacBook Pro with the i9 processor is being throttled due to thermal issues when doing high CPU load computations.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/17/core-i9-chip-macbook-pro-throttling/

The guy is reporting the previous i7 model is actually faster in those high CPU demand situations.

Mark

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Yes, it seems Apple (as usual) has themselves a new controversy on their hands.

These new laptops don't have the necessary cooling capabilities to keep the processors running at the correct speed (or that is at least my take on things).

So the extra $300 I spent on an i9 processor really was wasted.

On the plus side, damn, this keyboard is much quieter than the previous iteration.

 

[Carlo_M]

It's important to read that last part:

Because this is just one data point, it's not enough information to reach a conclusion about the i9 chip available for the 15-inch MacBook Pro, but additional testing will certainly follow to shed more light on Lee's video.

Apple has sold a lot of these already. If this were a problem we'd be flooded with reports.

 

[Sam Posten]

So the extra $300 I spent on an i9 processor really was wasted.

The good news is you have 30 days no questions asked return / replace. Don't do anything hasty. Let the reviews flood in. Then make an informed decision. It is literally a 2 button press operation to make a complete Time Machine backup and restore on new machine.

 

[Thomas Newton]

I'm not certain the i9 step-up has much benefit, other than the basic 10% increase in clock speed.

There is also a modest increase in CPU cache. Still, given that both are 6-core CPUs, the practical speedup for anything other than very long batch operations might be too small to notice.

 

[JohnRice]

There is also a modest increase in CPU cache. Still, given that both are 6-core CPUs, the practical speedup for anything other than very long batch operations might be too small to notice.

Of course, if reports are correct that the i9 is extensively throttling back, then it would tend to be a step down.

 

[DaveF]

These new laptops don't have the necessary cooling capabilities to keep the processors running at the correct speed (or that is at least my take on things).

So the extra $300 I spent on an i9 processor really was wasted.

Possibly. Do you do the stuff that cranks on an i9 CPU as in this initial report that would cause thermally limiting underclocking?

 

[DaveF]

another report
https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/18/how-macbook-pro-throttles-with-final-cut-pro-x/

 

[Carlo_M]

It will be interesting to see how widespread this is. Are these two isolated incidents running pretty CPU intensive tasks that most people won't ever do, or is this the proverbial Pandora's box being opened?

If it turns out to be the latter, the fault is not solely Apple's. Intel shoulders a lot of the blame. They've been relatively stagnant in their chip advancements for the last few years, until AMD rose like a Phoenix from the Ashes with their Ryzen series, startling Intel out of their 4-core stupor with up to 16-core offerings. Intel found themselves under pressure to look competitive on paper. Never mind that Ryzen wasn't the obvious clear-cut winner in all benchmarks and tasks, for the first time in over a decade Intel was being pushed by a rival product.

The main reason to choke back a CPU is thermal in nature. Could it be that in order for Intel to increase core count to appear to be on more equal footing with AMD, that thermal compromises had to be made?

Apple has been dedicated to making smaller enclosures while still retaining power in their MBP line. Sure they could slap a powerful fan in there and stop the throttling, but that would add another, what 2-5mm to the thickness of the MBP and perhaps another 1/4-1/2 a pound in weight?

Now we at least know why Apple's been so hot to trot to get off of the Intel reliance and have been heavily exploring creating their own ARM chips for future laptop lines.

 

[DaveF]

All good questions. I have no idea if this is a high-end super pro issue or something affects everyone that buys an i9 PC.

Of course, presumably most people spending $3500+ on an i9 laptop really do need that power for intensive computations. And so this thermal throttling would be something that affects much of the user base.

TBD.

 

[Ted Todorov]

From @reneritchie on Twitter:

My timeline is currently filled with two i9 MBP narratives:

A throttling controversy largely fueled by non-experts who downloaded “benchmark” apps, collected very few data points.

Massive eye-rolling, sighs, learned helplessness by silicon experts who are still testing.

https://twitter.com/reneritchie/status/1020711513005412353

In other words: we still don't know. That said, there clearly are reasons that Apple is working on its own ARM chip for Macs. By many accounts Intel is in deep trouble.

 

[Carlo_M]

Well Intel is still a powerful multi-billion dollar company. They're not going to become Sears overnight. Competition does not always mean "in trouble". In fact, competition (the healthy variety) often fuels major advances.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Well Intel is still a powerful multi-billion dollar company. They're not going to become Sears overnight. Competition does not always mean "in trouble". In fact, competition (the healthy variety) often fuels major advances.

I'm not by any means implying that Intel is about to start losing money - indeed look at Microsoft: even though they completely failed and dropped out of the smartphone business, and Windows greatly declined in importance, they are currently more successful than ever. But that doesn't mean that Windows or Windows Mobile or IE has had some sort of comeback.

Same for Intel - if they do end up being very successful in the future, it is not going to be with X86 CPUs. In other words, X86 will never be able to successfully compete with ARM - because PCs (including Macs) are only going to be less important and a smaller portion of the chip business in the future from mobile devices, and the chances of the smartphone and iPad business switching from ARM to X86 is zero.