I've been in the same industry for 20 years. I can understand wanting to do something different. We're humans, not robots no matter the amount we get paid.
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.
16-Inch MacBook Pro Hands-On: Benchmark and Performance Tests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I get that as well. I just think that, if that's what's going on, he should've been more honest about it and quit or changed positions and let others take over.
I just wanted to say, as far as benchmarks go.. the 15" I just returned with 2.3ghz 8 core, 32Gb ram and Vega 20, got a higher Geekbench score than the one being talked about in the opening post, that was the supposed new great score of the 16". I thrashed it with a November 2019 15 inch.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/602941
I decided to test out Catalina before sending the machine back, just out of curiosity, and it was a similar score.
Cinebench R20 was between 3000 and 3170 on multiple runs.. Intel power gadget shows between 58 and 59 watts when under max cpu load, and the cpu clock was around 3 to 3.1ghz, occasionally dropping to 2.9 for a second or so. This is the exact behaviour I saw in the 8 core tested so far of the 16"..
The cinebench score is every so slightly better on the new ones, which means that under 100% cpu load on every core, the thermals are a TAD bit better.. no where near the 12 watts of extra heat dissipation that Apple claim.
I regret returning the machine. The biggest draw was the bigger screen and a decent gaming video card finally, but honestly I am calling BS on the so called improved thermals. There's only so much that can be done with a single shared heatpipe configuration.
Anyway, compared to the 15 I had, the new one is performing, on an all core CPU max load, about 1.5 percent better than the one I returned.
An actual improvement would have been the cpu's being able to sustain 3.5ghz across all cores when under duress.. still well shy of the 4.1 and 4.2ghz all core turbo speeds of the two 8 core chips, but at least it would have been a marked improvement.
I have seen 9750H windows laptops tested lately that get a 3000 and over in CB R20. In the base 6 core 9th gen cpu no less! This goes to show how far behind even the MBP 16" is in thermal performance, and I am a bit sick and tired of all the youtube reviewers so far praising how much better thermals and performance are, then actually citing results similar to what I just said.. LOL.
I'll still get one, to have a better keyboard, the nice slim bezels and 16" screen, and to be able to game at 1900x1200 at high settings in bootcamp. But I would have given that all up to keep Mojave had I known. Sadly I was under time pressure, and the real testing of the 16" did not come out before my return date was up.. I had to send it back or keep it and decided to send it back. Honestly feel like re buying it as a refurb LOL, although this time it will come with Catalina and I've seen many issues downgrading to Mojave from Catalina even on macs that support it.. So.. I dunno.
In any case, if that was all TLDR, I am not happy with the thermal and performance improvements in the 16" macbook pro.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/602941
I decided to test out Catalina before sending the machine back, just out of curiosity, and it was a similar score.
Cinebench R20 was between 3000 and 3170 on multiple runs.. Intel power gadget shows between 58 and 59 watts when under max cpu load, and the cpu clock was around 3 to 3.1ghz, occasionally dropping to 2.9 for a second or so. This is the exact behaviour I saw in the 8 core tested so far of the 16"..
The cinebench score is every so slightly better on the new ones, which means that under 100% cpu load on every core, the thermals are a TAD bit better.. no where near the 12 watts of extra heat dissipation that Apple claim.
I regret returning the machine. The biggest draw was the bigger screen and a decent gaming video card finally, but honestly I am calling BS on the so called improved thermals. There's only so much that can be done with a single shared heatpipe configuration.
Anyway, compared to the 15 I had, the new one is performing, on an all core CPU max load, about 1.5 percent better than the one I returned.
An actual improvement would have been the cpu's being able to sustain 3.5ghz across all cores when under duress.. still well shy of the 4.1 and 4.2ghz all core turbo speeds of the two 8 core chips, but at least it would have been a marked improvement.
I have seen 9750H windows laptops tested lately that get a 3000 and over in CB R20. In the base 6 core 9th gen cpu no less! This goes to show how far behind even the MBP 16" is in thermal performance, and I am a bit sick and tired of all the youtube reviewers so far praising how much better thermals and performance are, then actually citing results similar to what I just said.. LOL.
I'll still get one, to have a better keyboard, the nice slim bezels and 16" screen, and to be able to game at 1900x1200 at high settings in bootcamp. But I would have given that all up to keep Mojave had I known. Sadly I was under time pressure, and the real testing of the 16" did not come out before my return date was up.. I had to send it back or keep it and decided to send it back. Honestly feel like re buying it as a refurb LOL, although this time it will come with Catalina and I've seen many issues downgrading to Mojave from Catalina even on macs that support it.. So.. I dunno.
In any case, if that was all TLDR, I am not happy with the thermal and performance improvements in the 16" macbook pro.
Yeah, but you have to understand at that level his personal decisions affect the stock price. It's a lot more political because of that. In order to protect investors (that's also Apple employees) this may have been the decision.
Thank God Apple stopped their "thinner at all costs" idiocy for the pro line. Give me a super ugly thick laptop as powerful as a desktop. Replace the iMac. It has a limited form-factor that does not have the advantage of being portable yet has the limitations of a laptop thermal signature. Might as well make it a luggable I can put in my backpack.
I know this may come across sounding a bit mean, I'm sorry if it does.
But Apple's laptops for several generations now, especially their "pro" lineup has had notorious thermal throttling issues.
Heck, even some of their desktops / iMacs have had similar throttling issues.
At this point, buying a Apple computer expecting no thermal throttling limits is a bit... foolish? As form US President George Dubya said. "'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again. "
Even the 16", while I think it's the best laptop they've released since 2015, still has a focus of form over function first. The design still focuses mostly on a smooth, uninterrupted surfaces with no seams / vents. while they are still pushing this design styling, Thermals are going to be an issue.
Great laptops overall if you need burst performance. But if you do regular heavy loads for processing, there are better laptops due to thermals out there.
This is just the trade-off one must decide when purchasing an Apple laptop.
That said, I can't wait for them to move the changes they've made in the 16" model down their linup. 13" MBPro MAYBE my next laptop
Put in an Nvidia GPU and I'll buy one in a nanosecond. In my area of science we use a lot of CUDA code.
Isn't that exactly what you'd expect? What do you think they base the price on?
The BOM?
What a person would likely expect is there are diminishing returns on investment as one selects a faster processor. Computers have always been this way. The base would be the best value, and top processor will carry a premium price.
This would result in the model with the top processor having a lower performance to cost ratio..
This doesn't appear to be the case, which suggests Apple may be charging a bit extra for the base processor to hide the premium cost of the top processor...creating an artificially linear price to performance ratio over their entire lineup.
Only to understand the differences with the new cooling system. The results of the 15 at the beginning of the post seem to me to be false.
My macbook pro 15 i9 2,4 ghz 32 gb ram and vega pro 20 - Catalina 15.10.2
My macbook pro 15 i9 2,4 ghz 32 gb ram and vega pro 20 - Catalina 15.10.2
Last edited:
they sure do...
i was going all same but with 1tb ssd saw they stocked the 2tb and decided not to wait 7-8 days and just future proof the size a bit.
they gave me $450 for my late 2013 2.6 quad core 16gb 512ssd Nvidia GT750m and allowed me to get education discount buying it for my daughter using her edu email
... now considering the excellent edu bundle for audio/video they offer.
i was going all same but with 1tb ssd saw they stocked the 2tb and decided not to wait 7-8 days and just future proof the size a bit.
they gave me $450 for my late 2013 2.6 quad core 16gb 512ssd Nvidia GT750m and allowed me to get education discount buying it for my daughter using her edu email
... now considering the excellent edu bundle for audio/video they offer.