Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

16-Inch MacBook Pro Hands-On: Benchmark and Performance Tests

I struggle to understand the logic behind: 99C and thermal throttling is dreadful to everyone, but 99C without thermal throttling is amazing! To solve the thermal issue, is actually rather simple, just copy every other laptop in the market nowadays, and put vents at the bottom! Some people did it and it almost dropped the temps by 20C with much slower fans speed. The only reason this is not done is because the current cooling solution tries to cool the flash storage at the same time. Then just extend the vents to cover the SSD section, it really doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Slower fans mean quieter computer, there is no need to over-design the cooling and noise level.
 
Spectrum said:
Interesting! how did you mine this data from the website?
Click to expand...
It wasn't me. There are some details scattered in that thread more than one person has been doing this so have a read of the recent few3 pages of the thread for some details.
 
TracesOfArsenic said:
What move is that? The one where they fixed a lot things that were objectively worse under his management? I don't mean to be aggressive, I'm genuinely curious if there's another angle I'm missing because I'm excited about this laptop.
Click to expand...
Yep. I've long held the belief that much of Apple's downturn was due to Ive's decisions. Like I said, good riddance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TracesOfArsenic
Zenithal said:
Yep. I've long held the belief that much of Apple's downturn was due to Ive's decisions. Like I said, good riddance.
Click to expand...
Find this whole attitude really bizarre, Ive's singlehandedly ruined the design or Cook has singlehandedly ruined the pricing (interestingly never Federighi has ruined the software when we get a mess like iOS 11 or Catalina?) but it's just utter nonsense. Apple's go to improvements have been thinner, lighter, faster for ages. Jobs himself always seemed to like to be able to point out it was thinner than before on stage. With the 2016-19 design, the obvious reason they decided in the collective to make it thinner was to improve the portability of the machine. If you compare the 2015 and 2016 machines, its noticeable and that's still a laudable attempt, even if it backfired with the keyboard and Intel doing a 180 on the sort of chips they promised were coming down the track.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Val-kyrie
thunng8 said:
Yes it is, they both run the exact same code.

the only possible criticism is each test is quite short so wouldn’t be as valid for long running processes.
Click to expand...
www.eetimes.com

New Geekbench 5 Improves Tests but Adds Bias - EE Times

While there are some significant improvements in Geekbench 5, the new version appears to be less of system-level benchmark than before and even appears to have added some biases that did not exist in previous versions.
www.eetimes.com www.eetimes.com

In a review of some of the results posted for the same platforms on both Geekbench 4 and Geekbench 5, we found that the change in performance numbers was higher on the Android OS and AMD processor than on Apple’s operating systems or Intel processors (the table provides a sample of these results). The Apple OSs and Intel processors appear to have benefitted most from the benchmark changes, much of which is likely attributed to the elimination of the memory and battery test that benefit the AMD processors and Android OS.
Click to expand...

PC Perspective did a similar comparison both versions of the benchmark on a pair Intel and AMD-based PCs and the differences are rather drastic — showing a much higher relative performance of the Intel-based platforms than the AMD platforms.
While there does seem to be some significant improvements in Geekbench 5, it appears to be less of system-level benchmark than before and even appears to have added some biases that did not exist in previous versions. Tirias Research would still recommend using it as part of a suite of benchmarks, but we have some concerns about the overall value of the new benchmark and recommend questioning anyone just quoting the Geekbench 5 scores.
Click to expand...
 
Marx55 said:
What about SSD sequential (Mb/s) and random (IOPS) read and write speeds?
Click to expand...

It seems the Toshiba chips are slightly newer, but I'm guessing we won't see the next major boost until PCIe 4, which probably won't even come until after Comet Lake-H, so ~2 years from now. (Tiger Lake will have PCIe 4, and that hopefully means that will get merged over to Rocket Lake-H.)
[automerge]1574242764[/automerge]
Falhófnir said:
Find this whole attitude really bizarre, Ive's singlehandedly ruined the design or Cook has singlehandedly ruined the pricing (interestingly never Federighi has ruined the software when we get a mess like iOS 11 or Catalina?) but it's just utter nonsense. Apple's go to improvements have been thinner, lighter, faster for ages. Jobs himself always seemed to like to be able to point out it was thinner than before on stage. With the 2016-19 design, the obvious reason they decided in the collective to make it thinner was to improve the portability of the machine. If you compare the 2015 and 2016 machines, its noticeable and that's still a laudable attempt, even if it backfired with the keyboard and Intel doing a 180 on the sort of chips they promised were coming down the track.
Click to expand...

I think:

  • Ive did a damn fine job for many years
  • But by the 2010s, he got bored with iterating old-school computer designs (laptops and desktops)
  • Regardless of how much Ive is to blame, Apple went too far in its pursuit of thinness. Newer iPhones and Macs are thicker again. And the Mac Pro dares to be a plain ol' good tower form factor again.
And yes, Federighi is absolutely a key person (if not the one very key person) responsible for the quality issues in this year's Apple OSes. That doesn't mean he doesn't also do great stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
This new thermal architecture alone makes my 2018 i9 to be like a cripple. They should had include it when they introduced more cores to the lineup.
 
IG88 said:
www.eetimes.com

New Geekbench 5 Improves Tests but Adds Bias - EE Times

While there are some significant improvements in Geekbench 5, the new version appears to be less of system-level benchmark than before and even appears to have added some biases that did not exist in previous versions.
www.eetimes.com www.eetimes.com
Click to expand...
Those articles doesn’t disprove anything. Geekbench is a cpu level benchmark and runs the same code though all platforms.

Battery has never been factored in the results so no ideas why that was even mentioned. Elimination of memory bandwidth tests was because they wanted a more cpu level benchmark. Whether that affected one platform more than another is a consequence of that decision.

In any case - it is a valid benchmark. Of course it is not perfect but it does run exactly the same code for all supported platforms so the results are comparable.
 
IG88 said:
www.eetimes.com

New Geekbench 5 Improves Tests but Adds Bias - EE Times

While there are some significant improvements in Geekbench 5, the new version appears to be less of system-level benchmark than before and even appears to have added some biases that did not exist in previous versions.
www.eetimes.com www.eetimes.com
Click to expand...

Did you read developer response in comments? Even if that assessment was true, it still doesn't detract from its usefulness x-platform. What is more useful is finding tasks that arm falls down on like spec tests used to show (not kept up).
 
luvbug said:
To me, this offering is the best laptop Apple has put out since my 2012 rMBP. Time to pass the old gal along to a friend and treat myself to a new compute companion. :)
Click to expand...
I will second that motion. Mine still works fine. I have been waiting for a keyboard fix. I am getting one.
 
weup togo said:
So the iPhone’s single core CPU perf is 37% higher than the 16" MBP, and the 16" doesn’t even beat it on multi-core by 2x despite the fact that the MBP has 8 cores and the iPhone has only 2 fast ones and 4 slow ones. Intel is hot garbage compared to Apple's silicon. The ARM Macs can't come soon enough. They're going to deliver performance increases like the world has never seen.
Click to expand...

Let’s wait to see if an ARM CPU can maintain a high level of performance over an extended period of time (15-30 mins) without throttling before getting giddy. Many benchmarks only measure performance over short bursts; it is sustained performance that is more important.
 
robotfist said:
As I pro, I love this new direction Apple is going!

Next up on the 2020 list, trackball and serial port!
Click to expand...
As a system administrator, a serial port is more useful than many would think. Lots of hardware still use serial ports for console or maintenance access.
 
dogslobber said:
The Apple sign isn't illuminated on the back of the display and there is no MagSafe. Total deal breakers for the majority.
Click to expand...

The lack of MagSafe I truly miss, but not the glowing Apple. While it looks cool, it also creates a pass through for outside light to be directed onto the back of the display. This can wash out that part of the screen, which is not great for color accuracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nütztjanix, CarlJ and jbachandouris
Guscat said:
And rumor has it that the MacBook Pro 2020 model isn't as fast as the MacBook Pro 2021 model.
Click to expand...
Actually, the 2021 model is being pushed back to mid-2022. Apparently, Intel is having fab issues with their new Core i11 chip. The new 4nm process is apparently having yield issues again. Hopefully, we'll see results by February 2022 so there can be a June 2022 release of the new MacBook Pro.
 
Spectrum said:
16% increase in multi core performance with the SAME processor is incredible. (Geekbench though...)
Click to expand...
Someone needs to explain that one. The ram is 2666 (Max intel spec) vs 2400. Clearly that can’t be it. Usually weird geekbench scores are people not ensuring that other heavy processes are not running while geekbench is scoring. And it’s not smart enough to report other loads
[automerge]1574255394[/automerge]
BigBoy2018 said:
Face-ID, lol, when a huge number of people already cover up the web cam on their laptops for fear the ‘man’ is spying on them.
[automerge]1574207574[/automerge]


Yep, geekbench is borderline worthless as a measurment of real world performance. But if anything, attribute that to the better thermals so it can turbo longer than the 15” model.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. Geekbench doesn’t run long enough to impact thermals. Faster ram? Only a bit
 
Last edited:
psingh01 said:
What laptops have a better than 720p webcam? Genuine question, as the webcam is not something I’ve ever cared about. Usually put a sticker over it.
Click to expand...

Lenovo’s shutter system is a great solution to that problem. I would love to see something similar on an Apple laptop.
 
Any idea how the new 16" MBP would compare to one of the May 2019 15" MBPs with things like Lightroom and Final Cut Pro X in terms of rendering times?

I've got a 2.4GHz i9 with 32GB RAM and the 4GB Radeon Pro Vega 20 video card ... just wondering if it's worth selling this one and getting a maxed-out 16"?

Many thanks :)

David

PS. I don't find myself limited by my current machine and already find it lightning quick for all my work ... so I guess I've probably just answered my own question there! ;)
 
This is hysterical. It turns out the benchmarking conundrum is all of the author's own doing! I checked the Geekbench site. https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/446 and the clown-sourced scores are 1105/6428 for the 15" MBP. a quick search on processor, https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=i9-9880H, yields a score of 1151/6820 for the 15". (I call it clown-sourced because primate labs does not adjust for cpu and other loads in reporting benchmarks, and many people either don't know how to benchmark or are benchmarking under loaded conditions which are then averaged into the results as reported by primate labs.

The same search, https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/632317, yields 1186/7088 for the 16" with 32 GB ram, and 1041/6738 for 16GB ram. Does ram size effect Geekbench? Or are these just some raw scores not accounting for other loads?
 
Last edited:
Val-kyrie said:
Let’s wait to see if an ARM CPU can maintain a high level of performance over an extended period of time (15-30 mins) without throttling before getting giddy. Many benchmarks only measure performance over short bursts; it is sustained performance that is more important.
Click to expand...
Isn't this more to do with the cooling set up of the device the chip is in than the actual chip itself, though? The A10X in the Apple TV has active cooling - I guess the idea there is it needs to be able to keep pushing 4K frames out without missing a beat, so any temperature regulating throttling isn't an option. Saying a passively cooled A12X isn't as good at sustained performance as an i9 in a large laptop with 2 big fans blowing cool air over it and a massive heat sink is pretty much a given ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back