This site may earn chapter commissions from the links on this folio. Terms of use.

Ivy Bridge die... on fire!

Update July 24 @ 1:26pm: Apple has released a software ready that addresses CPU throttling issues in its latest MacBook Pro models.

Our original story is below.

Last week, news broke that Apple's most recent MacBook Pro refreshes with top-terminate Intel Core i7 and Cadre i9 microprocessors accept major throttling bug. These issues are not unique to Apple — and we said as much every bit in our initial coverage — but Apple'south Core i9 implementation appears particularly egregious. Based on exam reports, the CPU often fails to maintain its base clock nether load, dropping to 2.2GHz — well below the 2.9GHz minimum speed promised past Intel and by Apple's own sales pages.

Once upon a time, a CPU'south clock speed was a static number that reflected the operating speed of the CPU at all times (unless y'all deactivated Turbo Mode to drop back to 4.77MHz — but that's a story for another twenty-four hour period and simply relevant to a much earlier grade of CPUs). The power to change the CPU's clock on the fly was first introduced in mobile CPUs as Intel SpeedStep technology and was used to meliorate battery life by dropping the CPU clock when the chip was under minimal load. Later, Intel introduced the concept of Turbo modes — clock speeds the CPU would boost up to, if thermal conditions and power describe allowed for information technology.

There's nothing intrinsically incorrect with CPUs or SoCs that dynamically adjust their clocks in response to operating conditions, and these efficiency improvements accept dramatically improved battery life and burst performance in modernistic systems. Simply there's a divergence betwixt offering a flexible implementation that adjusts clock to ensure the best performance in all scenarios and stuffing a CPU into such a deleterious environment that information technology has to drop its base of operations clock merely to concord functioning.

After Apple Insider initially doubted that David Lee, who published the first video on the topic, was telling the truth, the site performed its own testing using Cinebench. It reports:

The speed of the processor varied between 2.33GHz and two.9GHz generally, with i profound dip to two.02GHz, and then the range drops to a superlative of 2.65GHz.

That's not as bad as David Lee'southward 2.2GHz clock (though he was testing Adobe Premiere, not Cinebench), but it'south far beneath the advertised baseline clock of 2.9GHz.

Why Throttling Matters

In that location are two reasons why ExtremeTech is formally opposed to aircraft systems with CPUs or GPUs that can't run at total speed. Starting time, information technology represents operation you're paying for that y'all literally aren't getting. When Intel first launched Turbo Fashion in its desktop CPUs, it knew that reviewers would exam the feature with a gimlet eye and ensured that its chips were capable of holding their turbo clocks well. Today, that standard no longer holds. Apple's Core i9 upgrade is either a $400 or a $300 toll premium over its already incredibly expensive MacBook Pro model (at $2399 for the two.2GHz xv-inch model or $2799 for the ii.6GHz Core i7). And as nosotros've discussed, the Core i9 isn't necessarily an upgrade — in some cases, it'due south literally slower than the Core i7 Apple shipped in previous systems.

Premiere-Pro

From YouTuber David Lee's initial tests.

The other reason this is such a trouble is that information technology can lead to scenarios in which machines equipped with higher-finish CPUs are actually slower than the lower-end hardware they supplant. We saw this happen with the first Cadre M CPUs from Intel several years ago when the lowest finish models were meaningfully faster than higher-end machines. Constant CPU clock oscillation can accept its own negative impact on performance, entirely separate from the impact of merely running at a lower clock speed.

When nosotros talked to Intel near the Core M situation, the company explained that information technology had given OEMs more freedom to fix sure specifications for their own systems. One instance the visitor gave was pare temperature: If OEMs wanted to specify a low pare temperature that had the side effect of keeping the CPU clock speed from turboing as high every bit a competitive system from a dissimilar OEM that traded a higher skin temperature for better thermal performance, that was fine by Intel — even if information technology likewise meant two systems with the aforementioned CPU might perform very differently.

Only there's a deviation between accepting that a CPU might not be capable of running at its maximum clock and seeing the clock yanked down to below the minimum specified speed because a organization can't handle its rut. During the Core M testing Anandtech did in 2022, they likewise measured the average clock speeds of the CPUs in question while they were throttling:

The Cadre M-5Y10 had a had a base frequency of 800MHz and a heave of 2GHz, while the 5Y71 was a 1.2GHz base, 2.9GHz boost. In other words, all of these chips held a boost clock well higher up their minimum. The Apple Core i9 appears to not do this in a number of situations — and again, Apple tree isn't the simply culprit here. Users accept besides published guides to improving the cooling on high-end Dell laptops specifically to avoid throttling. Run a Google search on "HP laptop throttle" and you'll get enough of results at that place also. Apple tree may be the most prominent confront of this problem at the moment, just it'due south not the merely culprit.

Don't Purchase the Excuses

There are no valid excuses for this kind of product design. Forget the idea that Apple tree, Dell, HP or any other OEM tin can't possibly know what kind of workloads their customers are going to run. The major OEMs know exactly what their loftier-cease professional customers run because, when push comes to shove, there aren't all that many high-cease applications that compete at the top of the market. And furthermore, if these companies want to compete for high-end bazaar dollars or workstation cash, they can damn well take their competition seriously enough to develop some benchmark and test applications. Apple is sitting on enough cash to buy Adobe outright. They can afford the cash information technology takes to develop and exam hardware to ensure it doesn't throttle — which is why it'south particularly egregious that this problem can manifestly be mitigated by using 3rd-party tools from Intel (thank you to reader darkrich for the link).

Intel's desire to give OEMs flexibility and configuration options is great in theory. Information technology'southward non working anymore. Clock speed may never have been a perfect metric of performance — the so-called "MHz myth" wars kicked off past Intel'south Netburst architecture happened for a reason — but nosotros can acknowledge that a metric is imperfect while recognizing that it represents one of our best methods of tracking functioning. The idea that manufacturers are nether no obligation to transport hardware that tin can run at the clock speeds information technology claims to operate at is untenable. It'due south tantamount to giving upwards on the idea that we should attempt to measure out objective functioning at all.

Intel is perfectly capable of putting a halt to this. Ideally, the company would tell its customers they take to sell Intel CPUs in chassis that can back up them at full clock in standard performance. Again, this isn't some impossible enquire — define "standard operation" according to a suite of representative software that your customers run, whether that means gamers or workstation users, exam accordingly, update the suite every few years and ship the damn hardware. But under the circumstances, we'd settle for Intel telling OEMs like HP, Dell, and Apple that its minimum clock speeds are non-negotiable. If y'all aren't willing to build a chassis that can concord a CPU at its minimum clock speed, so you don't get to sell Intel processors. AMD should follow suit.

OEMs Should Create Guaranteed Non-Throttling Systems

There's an opportunity in all of this mess if companies are brave enough to seize information technology. Instead of aircraft laptopsSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce that rely on false claims and customer apathy apropos a global problem in the industry, OEMs could certify that their laptops don't throttle. Instead of but bold that customers demand thinness at the expense of all else, try offer performance-maximized systems that deliver what they claim instead of obfuscating it. Once again, nosotros're not calling for laptops that can run Prime95 and Furmark (2 applications more akin to power viruses than regular programs) 24/seven. Define a standard suite of software using common applications. Explain the reasoning. Perform the tests. The internet result might be more client sales, peculiarly if people experience the superior engineering science that went into the platform is likely to lead to a longer-lived laptop that holds its value amend.

The chances that this happens in an industry devoted to squeezing out every nickel of profit equally opposed to delivering a superior customer feel is negligible. Just it's what ought to happen. Either way, nosotros're through tolerating this behavior. We're non claiming Apple was the first company to cantankerous the line between "flexible configurations" and "Unacceptable throttling," merely the line has been crossed. This consumer-hostile, bullshit behavior needs to stop and information technology needs to stop now.

At present read: Intel Core i5 vs. Cadre i7: Which Processor Should You Buy?