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.
Macbook Pro 2019 Benchmarks and First Impressions! Post yours!
- Thread starter RumorConsumer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well that's what i'm asking, I know the 2018 Vega models ran the fans louder but CPU was a lot hotter too. Curious if the 2019 model fans also run louder with Vega if they solved the CPU issue by undervolting or whatever fixes they put into place. The Vega is supposed to be cooler and more efficient card compared to the 555/560x cards is it not? Seems weird that the fans would be louder on the Vega models, should be quieter if anything now that the CPU issue is solved.
I received my 2019 yesterday, i9 2.3GHz, Vega 20. In normal use at least, it seems to run significantly cooler and quieter than my 2018 i7 2.6GHz, 560X.
I haven't tried pushing the gfx hardware yet though.
Well that's good to hear, maybe i'll give it a try then and put it thru the ringer with some editing and light gaming then. Thanks for the response
Run the tests!
[doublepost=1560351946][/doublepost]
It comes today. Cinebench scores coming your way soon...
Licensing is an issue I suspect (for x86). But if Apple can use x64 instead I’m thinking that explains the hard push for Catalina to be 64 bit only. I could be wrong.
What kind of issue?
Surely it's just a matter of paying the fee. Would be the same for x86-64, where they'd need to license from AMD, like Intel do.And the same as their ARM tech.
What kind of issue?
And the same as their ARM tech.
Ha ha. I don’t think it’s that easy. I could be wrong but my understanding is that X86 has to be licensed from Intel. AMD did this because they licensed x64 back to Intel, but I’m not sure what Apple has to offer. Aside form gobs of cash of course.
As I said, I could be wrong but it seems to make little sense based on my limited understanding. If Apple was going to get x86 licensing would they be pushing so hard to oust 32 bit apps? That’s why I’m thinking that getting x64 from AMD is a better option, and also more forwards looking from a technology standpoint.
Again, I could be wrong.
You could certainly be right. I just assumed this kind of tech was available to license; others have done so before
When I wrote that I also assumed x86-64 was a 64 bit extension of x86. I checked and it's not; it's a 64 bit version of it.
So your idea makes sense. But they'd have to license x86-64 from AMD.
[doublepost=1560363681][/doublepost]
Well since you ask so nicely
Attachments
You could certainly be right. I just assumed this kind of tech was available to license; others have done so before
When I wrote that I also assumed x86-64 was a 64 bit extension of x86. I checked and it's not; it's a 64 bit version of it.
So your idea makes sense. But they'd have to license x86-64 from AMD.
[doublepost=1560363681][/doublepost]
Well since you ask so nicely
View attachment 842498 View attachment 842499 View attachment 842500
Those specs look amazing. How much RAM do you have?
Smoking!!!You could certainly be right. I just assumed this kind of tech was available to license; others have done so before
When I wrote that I also assumed x86-64 was a 64 bit extension of x86. I checked and it's not; it's a 64 bit version of it.
So your idea makes sense. But they'd have to license x86-64 from AMD.
[doublepost=1560363681][/doublepost]
Well since you ask so nicely
View attachment 842498 View attachment 842499 View attachment 842500
You could certainly be right. I just assumed this kind of tech was available to license; others have done so before
When I wrote that I also assumed x86-64 was a 64 bit extension of x86. I checked and it's not; it's a 64 bit version of it.
So your idea makes sense. But they'd have to license x86-64 from AMD.
[doublepost=1560363681][/doublepost]
Well since you ask so nicely
View attachment 842498 View attachment 842499 View attachment 842500
Nice. Here is my MacBook Pro, it's the same configuration as yours but with the upgraded i9. I don't have a picture of the Geekbench, it was 5724/30887
Speaking of RAM, if you get the Vega card does that negate the need for some system ram for tasks like video editing? Can't remember where but I thought I saw someone say the Vega card's 4gb kinda acts as 8gb with the way it's designed. Is that true and does that mean it'll help negate the need for the 32gb system memory upgrade? Trying to cut corners where I can, if it's basically like 24gb that may be enough lol
NICE. Mine is here. I got some stuff to take care of then we can get to playing around. What kinds of temps did you see?
When I ran that test the other day it was hot and humid here, I ran Cinebench 5x in a row and after awhile it hovered between 95 and 97. Power was 54-55, core speed was 3.1-3.2, utilization of course pegged at 99%. Other than running benchmark tests though, I never hear the fans.
What’s your room like? What kind of surface? I did some tests earlier and then realized my desk wasn’t dissipating any heat.
2.4ghz i9 15" 32gb RAM 560x
Ok first round I ran without applying the 10.14.5 Supplemental update. Saw 3208 on Cinebench and 5765 on Geekbench. On CB, temps hovered around 95-97, CPU between 3.03-3.1ghz with the characteristic spike at the start. Mine got up to 4.6 momentarily.
Now applying Supplemental update and will retest.
After supplemental update:
Geekbench 5947/31277
CB - 3244. I put it over the cooling vent in the room and got a 3299 but that don't count.
Ok first round I ran without applying the 10.14.5 Supplemental update. Saw 3208 on Cinebench and 5765 on Geekbench. On CB, temps hovered around 95-97, CPU between 3.03-3.1ghz with the characteristic spike at the start. Mine got up to 4.6 momentarily.
Now applying Supplemental update and will retest.
After supplemental update:
Geekbench 5947/31277
CB - 3244. I put it over the cooling vent in the room and got a 3299 but that don't count.
Seems high I coulda swore these were supposed to run about 10 degrees cooler than usual. Btw do these new CPUs in the 2019 model also require you disable hyperthreading or has Intel fixed that?
Do you have iStatMenus, or something else that would show the CPU voltage? If you have, could you check what the voltage is while running the CB20, it should be pretty constant at the same frequency, so just make a mental note what the GHz are.
Those results are very good, it scales almost 1:1 with number of cores, while power remains the same. On the 6 core MBP I'm getting 2550 and a number of others were getting the same. Using my 6 core desktop as a test bed, to get 2550 I have to run at 3.4 GHz. To get 3250, like 8 core MBP, I need to be at 4.25 GHz. You're getting this at ~3.2 average (trying to spread to initial spike over duration of the test), so the IPC seem to be the same as the 8th gen, but the performance/watt insanely improved, to the tune of ~25%. Looking at the 9th gen 6 core results doesn't seem like there is anything in the architecture itself, cooling and thermal ceiling the same, so Apple has to run the 8 core at much lower voltages.