From this video: https://youtu.be/hB1aP2OnUJA we can see it quickly gets to 100c and stays there despite ramping the fan up. So while a quad core that can turbo up to 3.5/3.8ghz sounds awesome, for heavy sustained performance it looks like it’s definitely going to be clocking down to 1.5ghz or so.
This isn’t a surprise to me but I think some people just see 3.5/3.8 quad core and think this is going to be right on the heels of the MBP 13
That said compared to other notebooks, MacBooks in similar tiers tend to benchmark quite well regardless of the thermal throttling.
Edit: admittedly, this is a bit like returning to a desktop...
Trying changing resolutions or scaling or refresh rate. 2K moniter are supposedly worse than others.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22265235
It is a joke that a high end machine has such a glaring issue. Then again, Apple got away from selling terrible terrible keyboards that were not easily replaceable for years.
For 60% of the cost of my MBP 16, I built a liquid cooled Ryzen 9 3900Z beast with 64GB of fast RAM, 1TB NVME SSD, RTX 2080 GPU, driving two 4k displays.
I run nixOS on it, my MBP only sees the light of day for things that absolutely require macOS, or when I’m out and about.
For normal, mostly stationary dev (Go, Rust), the desktop is miles better.
Although I love everything else about the MBP 16, this issue drives me crazy.
Why would you do that?
So for example the CPU is rated at 1.1ghz base and up to 3.5ghz boost. In the thermal throttling video we see it hold steady at ~10w and ~1.5ghz sustained. As far as Intel/Apple is concerned this isn’t thermal throttling because it is still higher than the base clock. Previously they would list all core boost clock and I think if it fell below that it would technically be thermal throttling
Also my first thought, but then I remembered the new monitor stand. The monitor attaches with magnets and by all accounts the movement mechanism works very well. Odds are they took what they learned there and applied it on a smaller scale here.