16 inch i7 vs i9 for sustained loads?

[hotdwag]

Looking at the i7 and i9 with similar specs (5500m 8gb, 1tb) ends up costing a $100 difference. However, one concern is thermal performance in macOS and Windows (boot-camp). Would there be a measurable benefit to the i7 running cooler in theory due to lower core count, thus resulting in better performance for some applications / scenarios? Or is it essentially a wash? I couldn't find anything directly looking at this scenario. The cost difference for my situation isn't the issue, just wondering if long acting loads (boot-camp games / longer renders) would be better under the 6-core. My understanding is that they're both hyperthreading as well.

 

[iemcj]

They'll run at the same temp when maxed.

The way computers work is when you're doing a heavy load, it's going to try to use every bit that a cpu can provide. It's going to run full out and hit it's max temp. The i7 will run a bit slower... but it's also less efficient thus making the heat and power use identical.

 

[Camarillo Brillo]

I think you’ve got the i7 mixed up with the 2.3 i9

It’s the 2.3 vs 2.4 i9 you’re talking about being categorized by performance. The i7 is a 6 core, both the i9 are 8 core

 

[iemcj]

I think you’ve got the i7 mixed up with the 2.3 i9

It’s the 2.3 vs 2.4 i9 you’re talking about being categorized by performance. The i7 is a 6 core, both the i9 are 8 core

Oh woops that's correct, I forgot there's 3 cpu options here I apologize.

 

[adeelrahman]

So is 2.4 better than 2.3? Read somewhere that 2.3 was better...

 

[iemcj]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/16-mbp-geekbench-scores-so-far-show-big-differences.2211524/

My mistake on the cores (again I appologize, I forgot the i7 was the 6 core and on a different die). But according to all the testing I've seen from users on here it looks like the 2.3 is the worst bang for the buck value proposition. You're best off with the "base" i7 (which is already a powerhouse) or you may as well go all the way up with the i9 2.4 as the slight price increase get's a better bang for the buck than the 2.3.

But hey different options for everyone!

 

[redheeler]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/16-mbp-geekbench-scores-so-far-show-big-differences.2211524/

My mistake on the cores (again I appologize, I forgot the i7 was the 6 core and on a different die). But according to all the testing I've seen from users on here it looks like the 2.3 is the worst bang for the buck value proposition. You're best off with the "base" i7 (which is already a powerhouse) or you may as well go all the way up with the i9 2.4 as the slight price increase get's a better bang for the buck than the 2.3.

But hey different options for everyone!

It depends. Going from the base i7 to the i9 2.3 is more worthwhile when also getting the 5500M GPU and 1 TB SSD as the price difference is nominal. The OP in that thread is somewhat misleading, the more recent Geekbench scores are showing a bigger difference from the i7 to the 2.3 i9 than from the 2.3 to 2.4 i9, as you'd expect with two more cores.

 

[hotdwag]

It depends. Going from the base i7 to the i9 2.3 is more worthwhile when also getting the 5500M GPU and 1 TB SSD as the price difference is nominal. The OP in that thread is somewhat misleading, the more recent Geekbench scores are showing a bigger difference from the i7 to the 2.3 i9 than from the 2.3 to 2.4 i9, as you'd expect with two more cores.

Oh absolutely the i9 is going to perform better vs the i7. I'm just wondering if sustained loads will cause thermal throttling on the i9 before the i7, or if that idea is essentially a non-concern

The i9 seemed to have TDP of 45 watt with 8 core while the i7 is 35-45 with 6 which would pump out less heat... Though depending on how the device handles thermals it may or may not make a difference

 

[am2am]

I see no thermal throttling on my i9. Sustained.
There is total power limit that is playing role here. Both i7 and i9 will have the same limit (approx 100W for the system CPU+GPU). CPU alone is around 60W max in most cases I've seen under heavy load.