16" MBP Geekbench scores so far show big differences

[leman]

What about heat issues between the i7 and i9? How have folks fared that went with the i9? Currently deciding mostly based on this as a possible deal breaker.

What are your expectations? “Heat issues” is relative. These Intel CPUs do draw a ridiculous amount of power for negligible performance increases (I’ve seen my i9 draw up to 90 watts in a burst workflow). In general, the 16” can continuously dissipate about 60 watts in the CPU. This is more then enough to maintain over base clock on all cores simultaneously. You won’t see the CPU boost those last 200mhz as that it Intel’s marketing gimmick.

 

[Corncab44]

What are your expectations? “Heat issues” is relative. These Intel CPUs do draw a ridiculous amount of power for negligible performance increases (I’ve seen my i9 draw up to 90 watts in a burst workflow). In general, the 16” can continuously dissipate about 60 watts in the CPU. This is more then enough to maintain over base clock on all cores simultaneously. You won’t see the CPU boost those last 200mhz as that it Intel’s marketing gimmick.

I'm not really worried bout absolute peak performance, though I would hope the extra two cores would help in everyday, heavy usage, with a ton of windows and apps open.

Right now I have an i7 and i9 model and the i9 model certainly runs hotter on average by at least a few degrees. When you run Geekbench the fans kick in earlier and run 25% faster than on the i7. I don't really care about Geekbench scores but it was a marked difference. I noticed on a long zoom call yesterday that the i9's fans were quite loud. I wasn't plugged into an external monitor, but after a bit they were just constant. I will see if I can replicate that on the i7 model. I was thinking I'd use turbo boost switcher on the i9 model, but then... why would keep the i9 model? Would I still benefit from the 8 cores even if turbo boost is disabled?

I don't mind the i9 running a bit hotter, it's more if the fan's kick in all the time it would be annoying.

EDIT: I know that battery life is actually a bit better on the i9 when pushing to the limits, but what about everyday use? If it's running hotter then it must be using more battery?

 

[leman]

If performance is less of a concern for you, then I’d stay with the 6 core, simply to save money. Additional cores won’t help you in any way for everyday computing. As to battery life... personally, I think that the individual fluctuations between the CPUs will be a bigger factor.

 

[Corncab44]

If performance is less of a concern for you, then I’d stay with the 6 core, simply to save money. Additional cores won’t help you in any way for everyday computing. As to battery life... personally, I think that the individual fluctuations between the CPUs will be a bigger factor.

That makes sense. The way Apple structures their pricing schemes makes the upgrade to an i9 and better graphics card feel fairly affordable if you're already needing to upgrade to larger storage. That's how I ended up with the i9, and don't feel like I paid a ton. As for everyday computing, I often will have 5+ chrome windows open with 10 tabs in each, running a lot of extensions (don't ask, it's for work - and it has to be chrome). I'll be doing light video editing, playing music and probably running some torrents in the background. Zero benefit from 8 core I that scenario? If it's literally useless to me, then I see not point in having it! It's not really a FOMO issue for me -- I know what I want, namely the screen, 32gb+ of ram and 1tb HD -- but the upgrade was relatively affordable so I pulled the trigger.

 

[leman]

I'll be doing light video editing, playing music and probably running some torrents in the background.

If you are doing video editing, you will certainly see some improvement in speed, the question is simply whether that improvement matters to you. E.g. you could shave a 20% or so off a video export, something that might make all the difference to a professional editor, but be of no relevance to a hobbyist.

I'd put it like this: the i9 is definitively faster, if you let it flex its muscles. A Ferrari won't outrace a family car if you only drive it in peak traffic in a city...

 

[Corncab44]

If you are doing video editing, you will certainly see some improvement in speed, the question is simply whether that improvement matters to you. E.g. you could shave a 20% or so off a video export, something that might make all the difference to a professional editor, but be of no relevance to a hobbyist.

I'd put it like this: the i9 is definitively faster, if you let it flex its muscles. A Ferrari won't outrace a family car if you only drive it in peak traffic in a city...

Hmm.. all good points! I assumed there was some benefit to the i9 when doing regular work, but in excess, many windows open, lots of extensions etc., outside of video editing on its own. On my last laptop (a windows one), I noticed the quad core was often maxed out just using chrome in the weirdly intense way that I do. But that could be a windows thing as well. I wonder if the money would have been better spent in this case (if it is being spent), on upgrading to 64gb of ram.

 

[leman]

Hmm.. all good points! I assumed there was some benefit to the i9 when doing regular work, but in excess, many windows open, lots of extensions etc., outside of video editing on its own. On my last laptop (a windows one), I noticed the quad core was often maxed out just using chrome in the weirdly intense way that I do. But that could be a windows thing as well. I wonder if the money would have been better spent in this case (if it is being spent), on upgrading to 64gb of ram.

If the CPU is maxed out, it does not necessarily mean that is doing useful work If for example you have some buggy algorithm running that just burns CPU cycles, throwing a bigger CPU at it will only burn more of CPU cycles.

Speaking of RAM... there is no — absolutely no — reason for a normal user to have 64GB RAM in their laptop. I would say that even 32GB is already a total overkill. But 64GB? Waste of money, plain and simple.

 

[badsimian]

I switched from the i9 to i7. I don’t do a lot of compiling or anything. Runs slightly cooler with the 5300 as well. Day to day I can tell zero difference but most of my work is cloud based and I tend to run turbo boost switcher anyway to keep things cool and quiet so might not be the best example.

 

[Corncab44]

I switched from the i9 to i7. I don’t do a lot of compiling or anything. Runs slightly cooler with the 5300 as well. Day to day I can tell zero difference but most of my work is cloud based and I tend to run turbo boost switcher anyway to keep things cool and quiet so might not be the best example.

I'm generally not engaged in the typical high intensity tasks that require more chores, but I do end up taxing things given the number of programs I'm running locally. The reason, in part, that I upgraded was I already needed a 1tb hard drive and the higher end model started with that and an i9, which seemed like a better deal. I currently have a refurbished i7 but the battery life has been horrendous, I think, due to the battery. The i9 was bought new on a discount. Suppose I could return both and reorder another i7... tough call. The savings if I downgraded from my i9, 32gb 1tb and 8g 5500m to an i7, 32gb, 1tb and 4g 5300m would only be about $300. I'd only feel like it's worth it if the i9 would actually give me problems, like overheating (I could just run it with turbo boost switch on all the times but then, again, why do I have it?). Otherwise I assume it would hold value better long term with those components. I'm torn...

 

[sco]

64GB RAM might make a difference - here's my 5600M model with 2.3GHz CPU and 64GB:

ozsco's Profile - Geekbench

Either that or I've got a better than average CPU???