I see 36 tests for the 2.3 now.... I haven’t compiled the data but the median’s got to be around 6600-6700
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" MBP Geekbench scores so far show big differences
- Thread starter intrepidcase
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I see 36 tests for the 2.3 now.... I haven’t compiled the data but the median’s got to be around 6600-6700
The only ones available right now are either base models, or 2.4, 32 GB, 5500 8 GB, 2 TB. That is also the model most reviewers got. BTO models aren't out yet.
OK, that makes sense now. Thanks for clearing things up. The 2.4 config is exactly the one I have decided to go for.
That low 2.4/32/2tb/5500m score may have been me. I ran geekbench immediately and had poor scores twice in a row. Rebooted two hours later and suddenly had one of the highest scores on the list. 
So, I have almost never used all cores on my 2016 15”, even when doing multitasking like exporting in Premiere, backing up, multiple safari tabs, vpn running, printing etc etc. I would guess the i7 would be faster for most applications than baseline i9.
That's because Apple stores have only 3 "stock" models on hand - the $2399 base model (2.3/16GB), $2799 model (2.3/16GB) and the $3899 upgraded model (2.4/32GB/2TB). You may be seeing the 3rd model here because its what is readily available in the stores. In fact, I almost bought one today... but they didnt have one right away and needed me to come back later in the day since they were getting 3 of those. I decided to just order online with my employee (not-apple) discount
Most of the units tested so far may be units given by Apple to media types - perhaps they only have out those specs.
What I’m wondering is does the in part ram effect the fairly wide scoring ranges for a given chip
Some updates:
Single-Core Performance average:
Multi-Core Performance average:
| i7 | i9 2.3 | i9 2.4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| samples | 39 | 36 | 23 |
| average single-core | 1006 | 1017 | 1121 |
| median single-core | 1051 | 1023 | 1146 |
| average multi-core | 5430 | 6343 | 7167 |
| median multi-core | 5556 | 6423 | 7281 |
Single-Core Performance average:
- i9 2.4
- i9 2.3 (~10 % slower than i9 2.4)
- i7 (~11 % slower than i9 2.4 and ~1 % slower than i9 2.3)
- i9 2.4
- i7 (~9 % slower than i9 2.4)
- i9 2.3 (~12 % slower than i9 2.4 and ~3 % slower than i7)
Multi-Core Performance average:
- i9 2.4
- i9 2.3 (~13 % slower than i9 2.4)
- i7 (~32 % slower than i9 2.4 and ~17 % slower than i9 2.3)
- i9 2.4
- i9 2.3 (~13 % slower than i9 2.4)
- i7 (~31 % slower than i9 2.4 and ~16 % slower than i9 2.3)
Still are only benchmarks, also are the 2.4 ghz numbers based on the 32gb RAM model while the 2.3 are all 16gb. Don't think you would notice a 10% difference in real life usage, still better to spend the extra $200 on memory or GPU.
@athanis thanks for compiling the updated sample set. Given the likely number of (low) outliers from fresh out-of-the-box tests, without settled machines, I would think that the median is a better indicator at this point.
That said the relative differences are still roughly the same - the i9 2.4 is ~10% better on single-core and ~30%/15% + better on multi-core than the i7 2.6 and i9 2.3 respectively.
That still seems surprising given the nominal clock differences. I have pretty much decided I am going with the i9 2.4 to maximize longevity. Though I suppose it would behoove me to wait for MaxTechs review of the higher model next week in case there is a gotcha ...
That said the relative differences are still roughly the same - the i9 2.4 is ~10% better on single-core and ~30%/15% + better on multi-core than the i7 2.6 and i9 2.3 respectively.
That still seems surprising given the nominal clock differences. I have pretty much decided I am going with the i9 2.4 to maximize longevity. Though I suppose it would behoove me to wait for MaxTechs review of the higher model next week in case there is a gotcha ...
Geekbench is more of a short burst benchmark anyway. The 2019 i9 2.4 15-inch I returned showed similar stats in geekbench 5. (With a base 2.6 i7 on the bottom)
| CPU model | Measurements | Mean Single-Core Score | Max Single-Core Score | Mean Multi-Core Score | Max Multi-Core Score |
| Intel Core i7-9750H | 69 | 1029 | 1165 | 5479 | 5813 |
| Intel Core i9-9880H | 72 | 1051 | 1233 | 6437 | 6976 |
| Intel Core i9-9980HK | 32 | 1100 | 1287 | 7152 | 7449 |
Note that there may be multiple submission from the same device in the results on Geekbench
Solely based on the amount of base GHz, yes. But it seems there might be other differences affecting single core performance:
Probably Max Turbo boost 4.50 GHz for the i7, and 4.80 for the i9 2.3 and 5.00 for the i9 2.4
I don't suppose you have the data to break that down by RAM size for one of the faster ones?
The cache is bigger in the i9 I believe
Cache is indeed larger, but equal per number of cores: 12MB for the 6C i7, 16MB for the 8C i9s. Not sure how it's shared between cores.
I guess I am having trouble seeing the sense/value of the i9 2.3 cpu.
If you don't have serious multi-threaded work needs then the i7 2.6 looks to perform just as well as the i9 2.3 and will very likely perform almost identically in real-world use.
If you do have serious multi-threaded needs then the i9 2.4 looks to have a solid advantage ...
If you don't have serious multi-threaded work needs then the i7 2.6 looks to perform just as well as the i9 2.3 and will very likely perform almost identically in real-world use.
If you do have serious multi-threaded needs then the i9 2.4 looks to have a solid advantage ...
Dang, the 2.3 seems like the worst option and that’s the one I chose. I just figured the 2.4 was overkill but maybe not...
Nope, all i7 and all i9 2.3 are 16GB, all except one of the i9 2.4 are 32GB (edit: the odd one is 64GB: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/589968)
Hmmm. I'm tempted to try to convince myself to wait for the next gen intel chips 🤣🤣🤣
But... I'm dropping by the Apple store later anyhow for a look haha
But... I'm dropping by the Apple store later anyhow for a look haha
So it seems we have the BIG question: does the 16 vs 32GB affect the big differences between i9 scores
In all seriousness - why?
I've found the past few generations to be more then up to snuff performance wise - of course, my needs are not the same as your.