Microsoft Surface Pro series facing heavy throttling issues

[Redaktion]

Microsoft is promising up to 50 percent more performance with its latest generation of passively-cooled Surface Pro tablets. Our own tests, however, show something far more disappointing.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Microsoft-Surface-Pro-series-facing-heavy-throttling-issues.232538.0.html

[Grant]

Found a mistake in your article. Surface Pro i7 has 7660U, not 7600U.
Intel Turbo Boost frequency is not supposed to be hit continuously with a 15W TDP after all.
Besides, the 400+ cb multi is clearly better than all 7600U cb15 score on notebookcheck. Since 7660U is 3.8GHz for 2 cores, and 7600U is 3.9GHz for 2 cores, the peak performance is actually better than my expectation.

[Grant]

Please also try lift the power consumption limit in intel XTU. (change to 35W). I saw a post on reddit r/surface says that by doing this you can bypass the throttle.

[Rothariger]

it sound logic. Sourface Pro 3 had this issue, the Pro 4 as well... it's like microsoft doesn't care about that issue...

[Carl]

While I agree, tge results aren't great and quite disappointing.

Using looped synthetic benchmarks as a guideline for user experience, grossly miss represents the device.

The vast majority of surface users don't run workloads that continually stain thr CPU and will experience throttling far, far less frequently, if at all.

[GreyFox]

There are a number of problems with the methodology on this that make any comparison invalid.   

I get the whole benchmark it until it breaks mantra and in that respect they achieved their goal however, the variable settings for power, thermal, and clock manipulation doesn't lend itself to an objective conclusion. To say the Max Turbo Clock rate was not maintained is throttling is a misrepresentation.  Unless you can pin the configuration to the same settings you cannot make a comparison from one to another.  In a multidimensional system you cannot pick one parameter and draw a conclusion based on that alone.             

Turbo Boost is variable and not continuous, as evidenced by the XTU setting for microseconds of Turbo Boost.  At the same time clock rates are variable, voltage and current are variable, boost duration is variable, thermal parameters are variable.  Each of these contributes or detracts from the total work accomplished over time which is the ultimate desired result. The instantaneous parameter values may not be a 100% accurate predictor under dynamically variable conditions.   

If as shown on a youtube video, the sustained performance of a system is maintained at 16W and the rated power of that system is 15W how do you conclude it throttled at all even though under temporary boost conditions it may have peaked at 30W?  The message being sent is misleading and incorrect.

[Lorenzo]

you can unlock power limit from intel xtu but un that case you need a fan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suFQIbt3Dxc.

[Klaus Hinum]

We set the Turbo Boost Power Max via XTU to 35 W to test it and still the Cinebench loop did throttle to similar levels, so I guess its just a cooling issue and not a TDP limit.

[nonua]

Why do you keep saying "SKU" (stock keeping unit) rather than the more accepted term "model"

[Charles]

Testing the Surface Pro with Cinebench and calling it disappointing proves only that those performing the test failed to understand what they were testing.  These conclusions are about as valid as a 1917 drivers permit.  The best analogy I can come up with is saying the Prius is a failed automobile because it fails to cross the Moab desert, a task best left for  a Jeep. The surface wasn't designed to be rendering platform.  It's  meant for casual to mobile convenience  professionals (photography a la lightroom and photoshop on the go i.e. for those in the field edits)  Surface Pro and its predecessors aren't meant to render 3D scenes hence the use of cinebench is not the best task to throw at it.

[Charles]

Testing the Surface Pro with Cinebench and calling it disappointing proves only that those performing the test failed to understand what they were testing.  These conclusions are about as valid as a 1917 drivers permit.  The best analogy I can come up with is saying the Prius is a failed automobile because it fails to cross the Moab desert, a task best left for  a Jeep. The surface wasn't designed to be rendering platform.  It's  meant for casual to mobile convenience  professionals (photography a la lightroom and photoshop on the go i.e. for those in the field edits)  Surface Pro and its predecessors aren't meant to render 3D scenes hence the use of cinebench is not the best task to throw at it.

[garbagedisposal]

There are a number of problems with the methodology on this that make any comparison invalid.   

I get the whole benchmark it until it breaks mantra and in that respect they achieved their goal however, the variable settings for power, thermal, and clock manipulation doesn't lend itself to an objective conclusion. To say the Max Turbo Clock rate was not maintained is throttling is a misrepresentation.  Unless you can pin the configuration to the same settings you cannot make a comparison from one to another.  In a multidimensional system you cannot pick one parameter and draw a conclusion based on that alone.             

Turbo Boost is variable and not continuous, as evidenced by the XTU setting for microseconds of Turbo Boost.  At the same time clock rates are variable, voltage and current are variable, boost duration is variable, thermal parameters are variable.  Each of these contributes or detracts from the total work accomplished over time which is the ultimate desired result. The instantaneous parameter values may not be a 100% accurate predictor under dynamically variable conditions.   

If as shown on a youtube video, the sustained performance of a system is maintained at 16W and the rated power of that system is 15W how do you conclude it throttled at all even though under temporary boost conditions it may have peaked at 30W?  The message being sent is misleading and incorrect.

You're an idiot.
There's no problem with the methodology at all - load all the cores and see if it throttles. It does throttle, and in barely any time at all.

If max turbo is not achieved, that is the very definition of throttling.
Whether intel calls the max attainable frequency 'super turbo' or 'beyond max turbo+' - if whatever max frequency can only be reached transiently before thermal/power limits are hit - then it's called throttling.

The misleading nonsense BS in your post about variable clocks/voltages are completely meaningless. You're not educating anyone. Please refrain from commenting, it's pretty clear you have no experience with hardware.

[garbagedisposal]

Testing the Surface Pro with Cinebench and calling it disappointing proves only that those performing the test failed to understand what they were testing.  These conclusions are about as valid as a 1917 drivers permit.  The best analogy I can come up with is saying the Prius is a failed automobile because it fails to cross the Moab desert, a task best left for  a Jeep. The surface wasn't designed to be rendering platform.  It's  meant for casual to mobile convenience  professionals (photography a la lightroom and photoshop on the go i.e. for those in the field edits)  Surface Pro and its predecessors aren't meant to render 3D scenes hence the use of cinebench is not the best task to throw at it.

It's a computer and that's what it was advertised as - not a faebook-only machine.
If all cores are loaded and the clocks scale back, that means it throttles.

You don't get a cop out by saying 'that's not what the machine was intended for'.
Your car analogy is so dull it could have only been dreamed up by a SIDS baby.

It throttles and the cooling solution is not good enough. End of story, deal with it.

[garbagedisposal]

Using looped synthetic benchmarks as a guideline for user experience, grossly miss represents the device.

The vast majority of surface users don't run workloads that continually stain thr CPU and will experience throttling far, far less frequently, if at all.

No it doesn't.  They tell you straight up that they loaded all cores and watched what happened to performance, it tanked.

Misrepresentation? Are you joking?
All these surface feet kissing tards in this thread complaining. Fact is it's an expensive machine with a misleading spec sheet.  I feel sad for you clueless people that would pay good money for an inferior machine, 'but it's OK because it wont throttle when I check my emails' lmao

[Obviously]

garbagedisposal, take a time out and let the adults talk; name-calling and posting drivel is not the way to get people to listen to your argument, especially when it's clueless.

Little surprised this article is coming out of notebookcheck as they usually have some pretty solid articles. Obviously the passive cooling solution on the i5 7300U gets overwhelmed under extended load, but it's odd that the article authors call this surprising when it's not. It's helpful to know, but as already mentioned no one buying a Surface Pro is using it to render for an extended period of time; any designer with half a brain is going to export renders to a much more powerful CPU anyway.