Dave Lee's youtube video is a withering takedown, presented dispassionately.
His argument is such a slam dunk that the article concludes with stunned disbelief, speculating that maybe there's "something wrong with the MacBook Pro with Core i9 chip that Lee received".
Yes there's something wrong with it, that was the exact point of his video. Do people really think he just got a lemon?
Quinn Nelson (a.k.a. Snazzy Labs) recently did a couple of videos where he replaced the stock thermal paste on a 2017 MacBook Pro with a liquid metal thermal paste [1] and then 3 months later with a standard thermal paste [2].
With the liquid metal paste the CPU temps dropped 10°C, ran 200MHz faster and the MacBook Pro didn't thermal throttle. The standard thermal paste also saw a 7-10% improvement in thermals compared to Apple's paste.
I wonder if replacing the paste with a better one would help with the latest i9 MacBook Pro?
When working as intern at an Apple store more than 10 years back the instructions from Apple for reassembly would always tell to put a huge amount of thermal grease on the CPU. So much that it would be squirted out from under the heatblock in large blobs. I always found it odd as I was used to add just as much as was needed without spilling over. Never read any research on it though so I'm curious what was the right approach. I can't image Apple just getting this part of the thermal puzzle wrong when everything else is fully optimized. Or them just skimping a few cents on better grease.
If a bare-die CPU or GPU is not fully covered, the uncovered portions will rapidly become hot and the chip may die (especially if the thermal sensors are covered and cannot detect this). This is different from modern desktop processors where there is an IHS to help spread the heat around - there is a very real danger to insufficient paste application on a bare die. In contrast, since modern thermal pastes are non-conductive, there is no real downside to an enthusiastic application of paste except for making a mess, so you want to default to putting too much on rather than having some dumb intern kill a PC with an insufficient application. There is virtually no effect on thermals.
LM is conductive, so you need to be much more careful with the application, as over-application will kill the chip. It also can migrate over time, especially if you put a bit too much on, and is particularly unsuitable for laptops that are going to be moved around a lot.
Putting LM on a laptop is a gimmick, and one with fairly considerable risk to the hardware, not something that is suitable for mass production.
> since modern thermal pastes are non-conductive, there is no real downside to an enthusiastic application of paste except for making a mess, so you want to default to putting too much on rather than having some dumb intern kill a PC with an insufficient application. There is virtually no effect on thermals.
The effect on thermals are absolutely not insignificant. Thermal pastes are actually extremely bad at transferring heat and too much of it really has negative effects.
Yes, it is safer to put too much than too little. Using too much the worst case is just that the CPU throttles and performance is sluggish and that rarely leads to an RMA.
For example, the thermal conductivity of a high-grade thermal paste is 8.5 W/mK, and the heat conductivity of copper is 385 W/mK, or for aluminum 205 W/mK. You can see that the thermal compound is actually a poor heat conductor and that is exactly the reason why you only need a very thin layer of paste to fill the micro imperfections between the IHS and heatsink.
> For example, the thermal conductivity of a high-grade thermal paste is 8.5 W/mK, and the heat conductivity of copper is 385 W/mK, or for aluminum 205 W/mK. You can see that the thermal compound is actually a poor heat conductor and that is exactly the reason why you only need a very thin layer of paste to fill the micro imperfections between the IHS and heatsink.
This has always been my rule of thumb whether it's metallic or non-metallic paste. I throw on a pair of vinyl gloves, squirt a dab on the heatsink (not the CPU), and spread an even layer with my finger. I go back and fill in low spots with a smaller dab, trying for an even surface. This way, it's thin enough that it doesn't squirt out the sides when it's installed, but it's a uniform spread that covers any gaps between the heatsink and the CPU surface. Also, by putting it on the heatsink instead of the CPU, I don't risk accidentally getting paste on the non-contact parts of the CPU.
I've also used the semi-solid thermal pads similar to what comes from the factory on most OEM heatsinks, but they are far less efficient than paste.
This is possible but friction welding needs temperatures to reach above melting point for a little while that is 1085°C for copper and 660°C for aluminium, machinery needed to do this would be insanely expensive and would need to be done to the IHS detached from the cpu as that gets ruined at around 115°C i think, it would be better for enthusiast grade heat sinks to carve out an IHS in their blocks. but that would be made for mainstream processors only 8700k, some intel hedt and amd threadrippers
Edit: selling custom IHS integrated heatsinks with LM applied and nail polished is a small and probably fairly inconsistent business to invest in buying a well binned 3790k kit, very few people would upgrade till an 8700k which showed significant gains worthy of an upgrade you would run dry for a few years especially the premium you would ask for such a service people would use these things for a long long long time i know people who are still using i5 2600k just because majority games are poorly multithread optimized
AMD could collaborate with EKWB would be great TR2 Liquid and Navi 96 Liquid. Intel have too much ego to collab
High mounting pressure will squeeze out excess thermal paste which greatly narrows the difference between the most and least conductive compounds when both surfaces are fairly smooth and even in while in contact.
> since modern thermal pastes are non-conductive, there is no real downside to an enthusiastic application of paste except for making a mess
I recently re-applied thermal paste (an old Arctic MX-2 I had lying around) on a late 2013 MacBook Pro which has bare-die CPU and GPU. The first time I did it, I applied too much paste and it had an observable negative effect on thermal dissipation. Once I applied the correct amount, I got slightly better results than stock paste.
> there is a very real danger to insufficient paste application on a bare die
So, I've repaired and cleaned many, many laptops and computers over the years. For bare die components (CPU/chipset) I use something like "half a grain of rice per finger nail area". This is already plenty. I sometimes checked after mounting, and there was always some minor squeeze-out. (For desktop CPUs I also use just half a grain of rice. The higher mounting force results in about a ~3-4 cm dia circle; this doesn't extend all the way to the corners of the IHS, but it doesn't have to, since nothing is dissipating heat there.)
> there is no real downside to an enthusiastic application of paste except for making a mess
That's not my experience.
With laptops, the pressure applied by the cold plate is not that much and thermal pastes have high viscosity. (The cold plate is often not that stiff, too, so it tends to flex). Applying too much paste results in a too thick layer of paste, which results in higher temps, hotter laptops, fans spinning faster and thus more noise and annoyance.
Indeed often I found the issue with manufacturer-applied paste was that it was simply too much. I think the reason they do this is that it's harder to get wrong and it makes the product just more annoying, not break it. If they did it properly, there would be some chance of getting it wrong, resulting in a broken product. For the same reason they're using thermal pads wherever they can get away with it: They're practically impossible to misapply.
The best scenario is full contact between the CPU/GPU/whatever makes the heat and the heatsink. No product that is put between those elements will make heat dissipation get any better, as it won't change the composition of the heatsink or of the CPU/GPU surface.
Now, in real life, CPU, GPU and heatsink don't have the perfect, more-than-mirror finished surface. There are small gaps and small peaks that prevent a full contact. And those gaps are filled with air. Air is a bad heat conductor. So, to reduce this bad, bad air effect, you fill the gaps with thermal paste.
Thermal paste will be better than air pockets. Thermal paste will be worst than metal/metal (CPU/GPU/heatsink) contact. So, put as little as thermal paste as needed, just to fill the gaps.
But put too few paste, or don't cover everything, and you'll end up with more gaps: the paste will prevent those metal/metal peaks contacts and if not spread evenly it will leave bigger gaps.
If you can't know the ideal, it's better to have a little more paste (but covering everything) than to few or badly spread (leaving bigger gaps).
"Better grease" makes a fairly limited difference over standard[0], and it requires way more care if it's a silver-based compound (as that's electrically conductive).
I'm guessing their thinking is they want to avoid air at all costs, so requiring way excessive amounts ensures it will never be lacking, which they probably think is significantly worse than excesses.
[0] the difference in thermal conductivity between an entry-level thermal grease and a high-quality one is 2x~3x (entry level is ~2W/(m.K) while top-of-the-line might reach ~8W/(m.K)). The difference between air and a low-end thermal grease is 2 orders of magnitude (~0.025 W/(m.K) versus ~2)
This may have changed, but for years the apple warranty was "as long as you don't damage anything, you're allowed to open it". I did some research and at least the manual for my machine still states this, but mine is also from 2012
I took a 2011 model in since I just needed a replacement battery due to bulging. The Apple employee was flabbergasted that I had removed the screws and bottom plate saying I had voided the warranty... on a severely out of warranty device. He was insistent that any device that had screws in it would have the warranty voided if those screws were removed and the device opened, even after showing him the manual which instructs the user on how they can open the device to replace the hard drive in the section labeled "Boost your MacBook Pro" starting on page 35. https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1602/en_US/mac...
They're getting a bit sloppy with the people they hire recently it seems. I had someone from AppleCare basically tell me I had 90 days after a repair to find an issue with it (violating Australian Consumer Law, which gives you 2 years) - mortified staff in-store gave me my refund though.
> While much safer than electrically conductive silver and copper greases, Arctic Silver 5 should be kept away from electrical traces, pins, and leads. While it is not electrically conductive, the compound is very slightly capacitive and could potentially cause problems if it bridges two close-proximity electrical paths.
It's not just Apple, the thermal paste between the die and the heat spreader on newer Intel CPUs isn't getting good reviews either. Replacing the paste under the heat spreader is a lot more tricky though, and requires special tools.
Why neither Apple nor Intel is opting for better thermal compound is amazing. Tests continue to CPU temperatures drop 10+ degrees (C) just by replacing the thermal compound. Even if they opted to get the very best thermal compound, I can't see it eat into the profit of either companies.
I recently built a new gaming PC, and it was so bad that I couldn't even run stock speeds without thermal throttling, let alone any overclocks. A swift delid and some new TIM and I had shaved 25c off the stock temps while no longer throttling. Woe betide any average user who isn't willing to void their warranty on a £500 part to get the it to run as it should, enjoy that RMA process.
Half the issue is the shit TIM they use, the other half is the way they attach the IHS to the CPU. It's attached with a huge amount of sealant around the edges of the IHS and simply removing it will gain you a good 10c improvement because you're moving the IHS a few mm closer to the dye, combine it with good TIM and you're golden, replace it with some liquid metal TIM and you're off to the OC races.
I could maybe forgive them if this was an isolated incident on one generation of chips but this has been the case for about 4 years now.
It may not hurt their margins much to use more expensive thermal compound, but it definitely won't help them in any meaningful way. These products are optimized for real-world bursty workloads that basically never hit a serious thermal limit that better paste could help with. Even on the desktop chips, delidding and replacing the thermal compound provides no benefit until you're pretty far into overclocking territory.
But the price for this machine is crazy, and it doesn't support a use case where you actually use the i9 cpu for long periods of time... Why do you need it then? To open the browser a few milliseconds faster?
It's not a professional machine if it's throttling heavily under load so you can't use its resources....it boggles my mind that it's even allowed to sell something like this.
It's like selling a supercar which can't go at top speed for more than 20 seconds, then it throttles speed to 60 mph.
Not disagreeing with you, but as it happens the Bugatti Veyron can't do the full top speed for very long (Michelin won't guarantee the tires to run above 250 mph for more than 15 minutes.).
The problem is actually that the silicone adhesive they use to attach the IHS is too thick. The act of shaving the adhesive down is what really produces thermal improvements.
Delidding, shaving the adhesive, and replacing with fresh TIM produces nearly as good a result as using LM (without the risks of LM). And using LM without shaving the adhesive only produces a few degrees of improvement.
The first edition MacBook Pro had widespread issues with thermal paste back in 2006 that led to random shutdowns and led to a recall to re-apply new paste (I had one and had to get the paste re-applied).
Future generations of MBPs didn’t have the same problems.
The point is: shit happens with any product, the question is will you be supported well? Apple’s history here has generally been good but occasionally they’ve made major blunders (eg. the iBook motherboards about 17-18 years ago).
Their size leads to amplification of issues beyond reasonable response. The keyboard issues for example are way overblown. We have thousands of MBPs and hundreds of Touchbar MBPs at our company and there hasn’t been a widespread keyboard failures.
In fairness, Lee criticized the Dell XPS 15's thermals in a video a couple of days ago. Of course, he also posted a video last week about how he was starting to hate Apple products.
If you watch a lot of his videos, you'll notice that he almost always talks about thermals, so it's not surprising to see him focus on that aspect of the MBP.
In all fairness: If you sell a >3000€ laptop, people should expect to get the full value out of it. Maybe it's hard to cool CPUs in thin laptops. But then don't let people pay for expensive upgrades that have no performance benefit.
Seems like it's hard to cool GPUs in desktops too if you're Apple
>their maximum FP32 compute performance is 11 TFLOPS (which points to around 1340 MHz clock-rate for the Vega 64) and their peak memory bandwidth is 400 GB/s (indicating about 1600 MT/s memory speed), which is slower when compared to the Radeon RX Vega cards for desktops. The main reasons why Apple downlocks its GPUs are of course power consumption and heat dissipation
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12152/apple-starts-imac-pro-s...
Sad to see that this is becoming a recurring theme from Apple's pro line.
Downclocking, by itself, tends to increase component lifetime. It makes sense for a professional machine that's not supposed to break after a couple years.
Of course, if the component still overheats, that completely beats the purpose of the downclocking.
It’s just a pragmatic approach to a physical limitation. The right choice given the clientele— debatable. But just the same it’s not unique to computer manufacturers.
It depends on workload. If I'm typing code for a minute and then spending few seconds compiling and launching it, it won't trigger throttling, but reducing each compilation from 3 seconds to 2 seconds is certainly a benefit.
Exactly. It seems that fast chips in slim laptops are like fast chips in phones. They may be worth having for performance on 2-second tasks, and might keep up with a desktop there.
If what you care about is performance on 2-hour tasks, there's just no chance, that's a completely different thing.
I expect the GPU generates heat as well. Which is why all the interest in external enclosures.
This entire thread is baffling to me. Everyone rushing to justify buying a new high performance laptop which they don’t mind throttling because they never needed the performance in the first place??
> Everyone rushing to justify buying a new high performance laptop which they don’t mind throttling because they never needed the performance in the first place??
Time scale is relevant. I want interactive tasks to be faster. I won't notice a 5% improvement in a job that takes long enough for a coffee break, but I will appreciate if more short tasks can cross the threshold of being indistinguishable from instantaneous.
> But then don't let people pay for expensive upgrades that have no performance benefit.
The number of people who want performance stats, or at least think they need, far outnumber the amount of people who need performance. It makes absolute sense to sell these lemons, even though it is unethical.
That makes no sense. "Premium" strictly means "at a higher cost." You can't possibly get what you have paid for with premium products, because some of your money has been spent purchasing the premium.
Regardless of sour reviews such as this one, most people will continue to buy Apple products because Apple sales have managed to transcend the quality of their products. Apple will continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable and people will continue to buy their products, defend them and praise them - no different from the past decade.
The fault lies squarely with consumers. Apple is just doing what they are being asked to do: flatter things, bigger numbers, higher prices.
I think it's supposed to render for a few dozen minutes fairly fast though and it fails at that. And I don't think it was 6K 3D footage either, considering the render time it was probably closer to 1080p60.
"You're using it wrong" (ie, "it's not supposed for" with different wording) has been a long time excuse for many Apple failures at this point and I'm tired of it.
> It's not supposed to render 6K 3D all day at full speed in the tropics
Hyperbole aside, their advertising shows it hooked up to a 5K external display running the Unity debugger. So it should at least be able to render 5K 3D for a typical work day.
I have a Dell XPS 15 (2017) and the thermals are really bad. I saw constant throttling in my kernel logs and the laptop sometimes slowed to a crawl when compiling, running a ton of docker containers, using Light Table or even just having a ton of browser tabs open.
I finally ditched it a few weeks ago, finally replacing it with a Ryzen 7 desktop.
I'll admit my XPS 15 was a factory refurbished model, so maybe I just got a lemon. It got so hot the battery is now swelling and it popped out the trackpad (I think there might be a recall; or if not take it in since that's gotta be under warranty).
My current laptop is a HP Spectre. It's thicker than the XPS, but I think it's got a much better cooling solution and preforms better. I don't think I'd recommend a Dell XPS again.
I don't know if this is sad or funny but my $350 Chromebook[1] that I modified to run Linux happily runs large Docker based Rails apps and has overall been a great development laptop for the last 2+ years. It has a 1080p IPS panel, a keyboard that I like more than my workstation, a real SSD and it weighs under 3 pounds.
YMMV, but in addition to a dodgy (manufacturer defect) and oddly designed (strangely shaped modifier keys) keyboard, my HP Spectre got really hot under comparatively minor load.
I have the new 2018 9570 with an i9, and throttling is very modest. My workloads tend to be bursty rather than sustained, so I probably wouldn't notice in normal use anyway. But running the Intel XTU stress test, I only get very short periods of throttling.
Perhaps the 9570 is improved, or as many suggest Dells QC is poor and I got lucky.
Oh man, it's not a lemon...My experience, with a pricy 7700HQ, 4K touch, is exactly the same. First a faulty SSD which first replacement of SSD and motherboard didn't solve (second repl. of drive did), then throttling, and then the swollen battery pushing out the touchpad - I even also got a Ryzen desktop instead (1700x)!
Thermals on my early 2018 9370 i7 are perfect and I haven't really seen any throttling even doing video rendering unless I'm sitting in my apartment while its 85F+ (Seattle still doesn't know what AC is) and it's on my lap.
The fans do spin up and they're audible, but not louder than my Thinkpad or any of the Macbook Pro's we have at work. It is dead silent unless I'm actually doing intensive work.
It seems people have a lot of issues with older models though, so YMMV.
Mine is the 9360 with the i7-8550U. In high performance mode, it's a hair drier. In balanced, the fan is a constant annoying whine if I have, for example, Webpack in watch mode, or am typing code quickly and keeping the IDE's language service active, or if any browser tab has any active JS at all. Basically if the CPU is at a reasonable speed and at 20% load, constant fan noise.
It's quiet if I have it in "silent" mode, but then I might as well be using a 350$ machine, as far as performance is concerned.
Maybe you have a slower CPU, or they fixed the thermals in your model?
Then I'm glad I have the '18 model, despite the USB-C tyranny. I don't know if they fixed stuff, but it's a pleasant experience so far. CPU is i5-8250I with Windows 10 if feels snappy.
I have 9360 with i5-7200U. I've just checked, fan kicks in after 90 seconds of sha1sum /dev/zero and stays always on lowest RPMs. 25C ambient. With 50% core load at 3.1GHz it stays silent most of the time...
50% at 3.1GHZ would make for one noisy experience here. Either mine's a lemon, or, more likely, there's no way to get a CPU like the i7-8550U into such a small case without causing thermal issues.
My old xps 13 with the i5 had great thermals on the other hand, but was still snappy enough for almost everything I threw at it. Didn't like it b/c the screen was just a tad too small for me and I had some problems getting good audio on the machine. Also, coil whine. It was awful.
Same here. 13 inch XPS, coil whine is insane. Had the motherboard replaced 3 times, no improvement. It was a replacement for my ageing Air 13", and I honestly wish I didn't swap. At first glance it's just as nice, the build quality and form factor are identical - and then you start using it, and see that Dell charges just as much if not more than Apple, but quality of several different elements is ages behind apple.
I bought a Nvidia/i7 XPS 15 in March and have never understood the coil whine complaints, yeah there is some but nothing too bad (comparable to my 2012 MacBook Air). Alternately everyone else has super hearing or I’m deaf, YMMV.
Yes, I mean obviously right now the brand new MBP is absurdly expensive. But when I got the XPS 13 it was actually more expensive than an equivalent MacBook Air(with the caveat that the XPS had a higher resolution screen).
The one I have(9333) is literally identical in form factor and inside construction to the Air - if you open the bottom cover, the layout of everything is exactly the same, it's as if Dell copied the whole design as-is. Nowadays the XPS 13 has exceeded everything the Air can offer, but just couple years ago that was not the case.
You can buy older (but unused) Macbook Pro with these specs (except it's 4 core instead of 6) for $1000 and it has way more battery life, nicer screen and better touchpad.
And thermals is real issue with race to making thinnest laptops possible. My Thinkpad T450s throttles just running Chrome and bunch of tabs. I don't see how a competitor having thermal problems exonerates Apple from having similar problems.
A big part of why I got the T480 instead of the T480s was to avoid the thermals issue. Seems okay so far, but who knows how long (I've only had it a couple days) that'll go.
In biology thin would imply a high surface area to volume ratio, and great performance if you're trying to get rid of internally generated heat. Here, I guess we're talking about room for cooling systems so as to avoid blistering users' skin or charring their pants?
But does the i9 version have performance issues (i.e. it under performs compared to the i7)? The XPS 15 with the i9 configuration comes with 32GB ram and it much cheaper than an equivalent macbook pro. I can deal with it getting hot!
The XPS 15 i9 does do a bit of throttling, but off the boost clock (it manages to mostly stick to 4GHz in the stress test that Lee shows) while the MBP i9 apparently can't even maintain the 2.9GHz base clock.
That, along with performance that's below the previous-gen i7 but charging $300 more is the real kicker - honestly, I'm not sure how anyone at Apple would be able to justify that as not just bilking their customers out of money.
It seems like these days, the mantra is "buyer beware" if you're looking to buy a Mac.
IMO the last good laptops Apple made were the pre-Touch Bar Retina MBPs. I've used three different ones, two for work and one that I purchased myself, and they were all solid performers with excellent screens, excellent keyboards, excellent performance, adequate ports, and adequate portability. The new MacBook, with its terrible everything-aside-from-thickness-and-weight, showed that Apple has lost interest in making a usable laptop in favor of any kind of differentiation they can get. Even if it's pointless or apparently even worse than nothing.
A couple of weeks into f/t use, mine (XPS 15" 9570, i9, 32GB RAM) doesn't get hot at all (fairly typical dev stuff - Docker, VMs, browsers, IntelliJ). It throttles intermittently, for short periods (perhaps 5% of the time) under a stress test.
I have had thermal issues both in my old Lenovo T61P and a more recent Macbook Pro 15, both with dedicated graphic cards.
No replacing of soldering paste on my part was ever able to improve the situation, with the result of having powerful machines only on paper, that were brought to their knees even by light workloads.
My Mac becomes impossibly hot and slows down playing games like Hearthstone and Civ5, FFS.
I have long decided that my next laptop (regardless of the brand) will have integrated graphics and a medium TDP CPU, and I will just limit heavy workloads and gaming to my desktop.
> I have long decided that my next laptop (regardless of the brand) will have integrated graphics and a medium TDP CPU, and I will just limit heavy workloads and gaming to my desktop.
You get more bang for your bucks this way, too. Desktop hardware costs a fraction of a comparable laptop.
Of course. A laptop, no matter how powerful and well designed, is always going to be a compromise compared to a desktop, in terms of raw power and relative cost.
The tradeoff is convenience, where you would have single machine that is able to fill all your needs (power and mobility), instead of two.
But, for me at least, in the end it's not worth it. Also, cloud and sync services made working in parallel on multiple machines almost painless.
Dave Lee's tests usually come from a gamer and media creator's perspective.
In most, if not all, of his reviews he makes a point to check thermals and throttling related to heat, because that matters to the gaming segment of his audience.
As for media creation, he always tests Adobe Premiere for his cross-platform media creation tests while acknowledging that Premiere on Mac is less performant than it is on Windows, and that there's a significant number of Mac media creators who prefer Final Cut.
The better question to ask is if any of those other sites who did benchmarks did heavy workload testing on the computers for extended periods of time. Running a CPU hot for short bursts can yield different comparative results than for a task that takes 30 minutes or more.
> The better question to ask is if any of those other sites who did benchmarks did heavy workload testing on the computers for extended periods of time.
I would expect so—benchmarks often have long-running tasks; if a task only takes a few seconds it's hard to distinguish the overhead from the task itself.
But if nothing else—they will do so going forward.
Yes, but depending on who you're talking to, "long-running" could mean a few minutes or several hours.
Throttling doesn't usually have a major impact on tasks that take a few minutes. But on heavy, long running loads, the effect of throttling starts to add up quickly, which is why the i9 MBP couldn't outperform the 2017 i7 MBP until it was stuffed in a freezer.
While the use of Premiere might raise eyebrows, I don't think it matters in Lee's testing, because he ran the same test on both the 2018 i9 MBP and a 2017 i7 MBP. Either way, it was a heavy, taxing, long running task.
I don't think anyone will dispute that the i9 has significant performance gains for people whose CPU utilization spikes are relatively short -- and that might be the majority of people who will opt to buy an i9 equipped MBP.
For content creators and other users who need to tax the processor for long periods of time, however, those users might be better off with the i7 version of the MBP.
> Dave Lee's youtube video is a withering takedown, presented dispassionately.
You've said this in two threads that I've read and I truly do not know what you mean by it. Is it a bad thing that Dave doesn't scream at his viewers when making a video? Or do you mean something else entirely?
His argument is such a slam dunk that the article concludes with stunned disbelief, speculating that maybe there's "something wrong with the MacBook Pro with Core i9 chip that Lee received".
Yes there's something wrong with it, that was the exact point of his video. Do people really think he just got a lemon?