Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2018 MacBook Pros - Benchmarks Only
- Thread starter theISHkid
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks folks. Wonder why the discrepancy between the first two?
Can someone with a 2018 MBP 13" show how its GPU (Iris Plus 655) scores?
After all the comparisons and tests I have seen the i9 doesn’t make a lot of sense if you do work which will strain your CPU for a long period of time.
They seem to get hot and can’t give you anymore power than the i7s do.
The i7s seem to perform as expected and will have enough power for me.
I will get 32GB ram, 560x graphics and 2TB SSD. That should do the trick for the next 3 to 4 years for me.
I’m upgrading from my early 2012 MBP (pre Retina) so it’ll be a huge step up for me.
Not sure, tbh I had Parallels Word and SPSS running in the background as well, so it wasn't like it was the only thing the Macbook was working on. Quite a mesmerizing benchmark to look at though
Yeah I hear you and Id bend towards that exact config with the 1tb instead. Only thing.. if Apple irons out this CPU issue and the i9 gets some more room to stretch out we might see a longer distribution.
I just can’t see that happening simply due to the heat issue. Even if they crank the fans up and lower the voltage I don’t think it’s ever gonna be much faster than the i7s. If it turns out that it will be I guess I’ll still Ben happy with the i7 as they’re plenty fast.
Just ran it again with my monitor unplugged and energy saver graphics saving turned off and got 491.
15"/i9/32GB/4TB
Unfortunately, this is really not Apple's issue but Intel's one. For some reason, Intel chose to configure these CPUs this way. Since it is essentially the same CPU core (just with different clocks), the max clock they can hit in sustained scenarios will be comparable. The only real "solution" to this I can see would be limiting max turbo of lower-tier CPUs under load, which would not necessarily be customer-friendly. Interestingly, prior to Coffe Lake Intel had more detailed differentiation of max turbo clocks that CPUs could hit under certain scenarios — this helped to differentiate them more; but it seems that they have changed it with Coffee Lake. A funny thing is that usually CPUs are binned so that parts with better power-performance curve end up as more expensive models, but so far, there doesn't seem to be a difference between an i7 and i9 — both reach similar clocks under similar power load.
And sure, Apple could also try improving the cooling solution so that they can dissipate say, 60-70 watt instead of the current 45-50 watt, but I don't think that this will really solve the CPU similarity issue — they will still perform similar to each other, since all of them would be able to get higher boost. And finally, if you want to take full advantage of the i9's potential, you need a desktop cooling solution since they get hotter than an average desktop CPU
Its a strange SKU indeed, and it shows how Intel is desperate to sell stuff. Anyway, the i9 does offer a healthy boost in short workloads, so it's a good choice for people like me who primarily work with short CPU-intensive workflows.
I could swear there are actual physical differences between i7 and i9... between differently clocked i7s you’re right but I dunno about between actual model numbers.Unfortunately, this is really not Apple's issue but Intel's one. For some reason, Intel chose to configure these CPUs this way. Since it is essentially the same CPU core (just with different clocks), the max clock they can hit in sustained scenarios will be comparable. The only real "solution" to this I can see would be limiting max turbo of lower-tier CPUs under load, which would not necessarily be customer-friendly. Interestingly, prior to Coffe Lake Intel had more detailed differentiation of max turbo clocks that CPUs could hit under certain scenarios — this helped to differentiate them more; but it seems that they have changed it with Coffee Lake. A funny thing is that usually CPUs are binned so that parts with better power-performance curve end up as more expensive models, but so far, there doesn't seem to be a difference between an i7 and i9 — both reach similar clocks under similar power load.
And sure, Apple could also try improving the cooling solution so that they can dissipate say, 60-70 watt instead of the current 45-50 watt, but I don't think that this will really solve the CPU similarity issue — they will still perform similar to each other, since all of them would be able to get higher boost. And finally, if you want to take full advantage of the i9's potential, you need a desktop cooling solution since they get hotter than an average desktop CPU
AFAIK, the only hardware difference is that the i9 has 4MB more of cache. And some of Intel's extensions, like vPro and TXT being disabled on i9 for some reason (which doesn't matter since Apple doesn't use them anyway) — but I think these are set in the CPU's firmware rather then in hardware.
Don't mean to rain on your guys' parade but I returned my MBP and got a Dell XPS 9570 with the 2.2 i7.
Cinebench: 1258 on average. Temps never go above 85c. Clock speeds maintain 3.88GHz even when running Prime95 for extended amounts of time.
I will miss OSX for sure. Thankfully I still have my old trusty 2013 13" MBP for when I get that itch .
Cinebench: 1258 on average. Temps never go above 85c. Clock speeds maintain 3.88GHz even when running Prime95 for extended amounts of time.
I will miss OSX for sure. Thankfully I still have my old trusty 2013 13" MBP for when I get that itch .
If there was a way to get MacOS on those machine's I might do the same at this point.
Great - thanks. Assuming that's the 13".
(For a more out-there comparison - my Mac Pro cheesegrater tower w/ 3.5 GHz 6-core Xeon & Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 scores a flat 300)
That seems quite low.
I just ran it with the same machine 13" i7/16/1TB and got a score of 449 ±6.70%
