If you look at his power/frequency trend it oscillates wildly. and CPU goes crazy between 40 and 50W for no good reason (indexing still going on?), while @Thomascrown trend is rock solid at 55W.
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
Oh wow good catch. Hmmmmm. I hate to ask about the 10.14.5 Supplemental update and whether it was applied...
Here's my scores from the base model 15" (6 core): https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13245654
And for those wondering, the keyboard definitely feels better! I played around with the 2018 keyboard they had on display and the 2019 feels a little different and a lot more sturdy. The keys feel softer in a way that's hard to describe...
And for those wondering, the keyboard definitely feels better! I played around with the 2018 keyboard they had on display and the 2019 feels a little different and a lot more sturdy. The keys feel softer in a way that's hard to describe...
I second that, wondering how much power efficiency improvement those 9th gens bring.
Here you go. I may run it again tomorrow after its cooled down since I ran this test back to back with Geekbench. Not bad for a base model though!
Thanks, but actually it is super bad, your machine is probably indexing still. Leave it on overnight and repeat tomorrow. It should be ~2700 range, or maybe even close to the 2900 of the 8 core. Unless you also live in the tropics
Thanks, but actually it is super bad, your machine is probably indexing still. Leave it on overnight and repeat tomorrow. It should be ~2700 range, or maybe even close to the 2900 of the 8 core. Unless you also live in the tropics
Ah that's true! I'll give it another day and I'll redo both test.
Thanks for posting the benchmark!
2850-2950 isn't too bad. For reference, my i7 8850H (2018 2.6 GHz) gets ~ 2500 average after 4-5 multiple sequential runs (this is after yesterday's updates on Mojave), so looking at around ~14-18% real-world difference for sustained loads. Temperature differences look very minimal though, so I doubt the internal cooling setup is any different.
Last edited:
yes a little bit but the temperature is a little lower plus the wattage dropped a little.
Same for my i9 2018 6 cores with Vega 20. I get around 2540 in Cinebench and 5700/25800 with Geekbench. I don't think they changed the cooling setup considering they already did it in November/December when they updated to the Vega graphics on the 2018 model.
Last edited:
That's still crazy hot, I know intel cpus are rated for 100c, but you're bumping right up against that.
That's still crazy hot, I know intel cpus are rated for 100c, but you're bumping right up against that.
I think it's fair to say that there is almost certainly no difference in thermals compared to the 2018 model (more cores, same arch and TDP, same chassis). Somewhere between 12 - 20% improvement in most sustained load tasks compared to the 2018 2.6 base (I think Cinebench is a pretty good test of this), but probably near the lower end of this spectrum on average.
It's all quite reasonable and predictable in the end, and not at all the massive leap forward that the Apple tech site headlines are shouting from the rooftops. The chip and chassis design still resembles a supercar commuting in rush hour.
Worth the money for some people but not for me. I'm sure the minority of MBP users who really need their speed will won't bat an eyelid before upgrading, 12 - 20% is still nothing to scoff at if you're maxing out your cores most of the day.
Last edited:
two more cores, no changes in enclosure, its just a spec bump.
Take your pick any and all of those things could impact the battery
For chassis/temperature comparison, below is a the older chassis, a mid 2015 MBP with base 2.2 Ghz running Cinebench. Running at ~96 C throughout test. Temperature wise in the same neighborhood as the test above.
So what you are saying is the "golden oldie" 2015 15" isn't as perfect as we'd all like to think and actually runs in the same thermal pack as the current ones?
I'm not really sure what to make of it, just throwing it out there to see how more hardware knowledgable people than myself may interpret it.
Obviously, this is incredibly small sample, but if this is an indication that the MBP chassis, current and past generations, are regulating processor temperature to where Apple engineers intended, it would seem that those saying its running hot are in disagreement with Apple engineer opinions. I tend to think Apple engineers know their targets and are hitting them. But then I'm a software guy, and could be completely talking Martian.
I think that perception has more to do with relative performance to Asuses and Dells of this vintage. The 2.2 4770HQ could turbo up to 3.2 GHz on all cores, so running at 3GHz was almost there. When you look at the old reviews the 2015 MBP was at least as fast or faster than other brands, while having superior battery life, screen, build quality, cool surface (even with CPU at 100c).
Right now it is different story, those unlocked Intel monsters can consume double the power of what the MBP chassis can dissipate and this leads to significant performance disadvantage, all while PC makers close the gap with better screens, good battery life etc.
This has been the case since at least Ivy Bridge... all MBPs I've tested in last 6+ years run close to 100C under load. And talking about thermals, the current ones have better thermal performance than the 2015 chassis. It wouldn't exactly choke with Coffee Lake, since it was perfectly capable of dissipating 45Watts, but it would be in more trouble when CPU+GPU performance is considered.
What's your take on the current thermal situation? Does Apple have a choice in front of itself or are we actually in good shape with the current chassis?
[doublepost=1558725334][/doublepost]
Yes - https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...-13-inch-macbook-pro-with-24-ghz-i5-processor