Yeah, I lost my patience waiting for more benchmark data and just ordered the 2.4.
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
Yeah, I lost my patience waiting for more benchmark data and just ordered the 2.4.
Ah didnt' see that, those are3 columns not rows by the way. But what I meant is you can't download lots of individiual results like you can for GB.
Why is it taking so long for proper stress tested benchmarks to come out ?
Barefeats have benchmarks now. Dsiregard the SSD speed, it is the same, some problem with the disk speed test app.
https://barefeats.com/16-inch-macbook-pro-shootout.html
https://barefeats.com/16-inch-macbook-pro-shootout.html
Except none of their benchmarks really target the CPU. I’d like to see some computation or raytracing in the mix.
So I just installed the demo/trial of Geekbench 5 and run the regular CPU benchtest and got these results on the 2.3ghz version (with 32gb ram and 8gb videocard). Looks really high to me and even higher than most 2.4 results? Are these correct or did I do something wrong (I'm a newbie to this)
Attachments
Did you install some MacOs update?
Perhaps you just won the chip binning lottery😅 Congrats!
Oh that's nice. That's my combination as well.
Isn't the latest one 10.15.2 though?
Yep, your's are 5% higher then the average results of 2.4 Ghz model currently on Geekbench browser.
2.3Ghz i9-9880H: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/641017
I'm not losing sleep over saving $200 with that kind of score.
I'm not losing sleep over saving $200 with that kind of score.
That's essentially equivalent to my 2.4 score. Starting to seem like the 32GB+ RAM makes a big difference.
Looking closer, your crypto and floating are way higher than mine on the single core (and crypto is still higher on multicore). A 35% difference seems like a bit much for essentially the same CPU. I wonder what could account for that.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/642232
chances are if you got the 2.4, you'd have a similar score anyway. enjoy your new comp!
I have now grabbed all 2019 15" and 16" scores (took a while since Geekbench browser is throttling requests — quite sensibly). I have also removed the lowest 5% of results (per group of model/CPU/RAM) in an attempt to weed out some of the underperforming outliers.
The regression analysis suggests that for multi-core Geekbench scores, 32GB models perform better than 16GB models by an average of ~600 points. No difference between 32GB and 64GB models. No effect of RAM on single-core benchmark scores. This is consistent across models (2019 15" or 16") and CPUs.
Comparing the 15" and 16"... according to my (very crappy and lazily set up) linear model the 16" is ~30 points slower on average than comparable 15" config in single core tests and ~150 points faster in multi-core.
If you want some graphs, here they are (I don't think that since-core is that interesting):
just a thought could the results for the 16 be lower since it is already working harder in the background to push higher resolution of the screen.
Really wish I could have done 32gb, but with the Adorama discounts on the base models ($270 on the i9), it would have been $670 for the upgrade from 16gb. Glad the i9 2.3 numbers have normalized at least.
