How Dell cripple performance explained by Notebookcheck.net

Premium burn

 

Sorry for replying to a relatively old post, but I've been thinking about this and came to this reasoning:
Suppose you have 50W of cooling capacity. This factor is held constant. You have the choice of putting in a i7-8750H or an i9-8950HK.

• At full load, both chips will be limited to 50W and their performance would be pretty much the same, since both these 8th-gen CPUs have 6 cores. So, under continuous workloads like rendering, using an i9 in a thermally constrained system has no advantage over an i7 with the same core count.
  • However, if you switch to an 8-core i9-9980HK, it would be faster under full load because more cores at lower frequencies gives more performance per watt (power scales approximately linearly with core count and quadratically with frequency).
• Now, in burst load situations like CAD, the 6-core i9 has an advantage. There is enough thermal buffer to enable the i9 to burst out performance the i7 can never achieve.
• Also, in single-threaded loads, the i9 with higher boost clock again has an advantage. With only 1 or a few of its cores loaded, the i9 is again able to boost past the i7 within the thermal envelope.

Therefore, "cramming" i9 in thin laptops still makes sense. It doesn't make sense all the time for all use cases, but it does have some advantages. And because of these advantages, these laptop configurations deserve to exist.

I'm sure we can all agree on bad cooling when we see it, but high temperatures aren't necessarily a bad thing — it depends on what the user is looking for.

• If the user is looking for longevity, then of course, look elsewhere. Temperature fluctuations cause repeated expansion and contraction, the main killer of electronics.
• However, if the user is looking for the absolute highest performance in the smallest package, the advantages of allowing a CPU to run higher and hotter cannot be overlooked.
  • I personally would choose a 1.3kg 50W 95°C laptop that lasts 2 years over a 1.3kg 20W 60°C laptop that lasts 10 years, because I upgrade at least every 2 years anyway and I'm not counting on resale value.
• I want to emphasize that we are talking about temperature (what °C to set the throttling point) itself, with all other factors held constant. Dell making their hardware able to withstand higher temperatures is a good thing, all other factors held constant. In this case, the temperature decides only between two variables: performance and longevity. If you want to say that Dell, in addition to making their hardware more temperature-resistant, have done other things to decrease the cooling capacity or other performance factors, we can also talk about that, but these are different issues.

(I don't like Dell as a company and have no desire to speak in favor of them.)

 

I upgrade every 5-7 years instead of 2 yrs. I just keep my devices for as long as I can.
When you look at an ultra portable device, weight is first factor and performance will be secondary.
Maybe Dell will use Kevlar linings to make it temp resistant.
Main issue here is lack of hefty cooling a little added weight doesn't matter if it can maintain steady temps under passive fans w/o turning active cooling which can make device last longer.

 

For me, performance ÷ weight or performance ÷ volume, these ratios are the most important factors.

Yeah, especially the current XPS series wastes far too much volume and weight on just the chassis. The carbon fiber composite chassis is 2mm thick and the bottom cover is 1.5mm thick. Sure the thing is rigid, but they could have been cleverer and added standoffs and ribs in strategic places instead. And aluminum chassis has better heat spread and thermal mass. A lot of wasted potential here. If the 2020 generation is better, I might give them another look.

 

I'm eagerly waiting for similar mods you did on your matebook X. Too bad Huawei is blacklisted from selling/purchasing anything in the States.

 

I mean, that logic would make sense if the MacBook Pro didn't hit 99 degrees within a second of starting a workload...

While there is indeed a performance improvement, it is far, far lower than it should be. i7 to i9 should be a huge deal, like double-digit improvements across the board. It doesn't make sense to throw in such a high-end CPU for such little gain. $400 for slight improvements is sad

 

Sure, that particular point may not apply to MacBook Pro in particular, but it remains true for many other laptops. And this is petty, but hey, that MacBook Pro was faster within that second. Burst performance, eh?

That's diminishing returns on performance/price for ya, sad for most, but may be compelling for others.
One way it's compelling to me is that I can take one of those over-crammed laptops and modify them to greater potential!

 

(From ThrottleStop Guide thread)

On one hand, you say these are unacceptable temperatures, and on the other hand, you suggest another user to remove limits to allow their CPU to potentially boost to those same temperatures? What am I missing here?

 

I agree that you can indeed squeeze more from an i9 than i7. But let's be honest here, the vast majority never will modify anything outside of the settings app

 

Where does it say it will boost to 100C ?

Read also what I said in TS guide thread... <Only too high voltage/100C over prolonged time ain't so healthy for the chips>.