16" MBP Geekbench scores so far show big differences

[tivoboy]

Just for comparison to the maxed out 2017 imac in geekbench 5.

1222
Single-Core Score

4649
Multi-Core Score

So somehow this macbook pro is BETTER than a full fledged imac. Wow technology moves fast!

Well, for multi core operations for sure

 

[danwells]

Shockingly close to a maxed out 2019 iMac and a base iMac Pro (within about 5% single-core and 10% multi-core). The only Mac that runs away from the 16" is an iMac Pro with a CPU upgrade.

I strongly suspect that the base Mac Pro will be right in that same performance class - the only benchmark I've been able to find is for a 28-core model (Marquess Brownlee runs Geekbench in his YouTube video). Unsurprisingly, the single-core is about the same as everything else and the multi-core is about 3x faster.

 

[iemcj]

Well, for multi core operations for sure

True. I'm just amazed it's basically equal in single core and actually BETTER in multi. Sweet jebus, I really hope the 2020 imac is a big jump forward or I may just switch to a macbook pro and a monitor.

 

[-narcan-]

My i9 2.3 32gb performs slightly better than my 16gb in Geekbench,

Result of: 1200 / 6871

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/762397

 

[Austin Nguyen]

I have an i9 2.3, 32gb ram, 5500m 8gb
Results: 1161/7214

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/778908

I guess the RAM makes a difference? Im'm on the higher end of the 2.3ghz

 

[cap7ainclu7ch]

Any reason why my 2.4 is giving me significantly higher scores on battery vs AC?

 

[am2am]

additional heat from battery charging?

 

[cap7ainclu7ch]

Possibly, seems to be working better now under AC. Pretty happy with the scores.

 

[Ploki]

I strongly suspect that the base Mac Pro will be right in that same performance class - the only benchmark I've been able to find is for a 28-core model (Marquess Brownlee runs Geekbench in his YouTube video). Unsurprisingly, the single-core is about the same as everything else and the multi-core is about 3x faster.

except the base Mac Pro has 3 huge fans and a giant heat sink, that can cool this CPU 24/7.
For bursts, maybe, it's 8-core on the generation tech.

 

[bsbeamer]

If you're running GB5, run one test. Wait 1-2 minutes and run another. Then wait 3-5 minutes and run another. Then wait 5-10 minutes and run another. Then run one more immediately after. Chart your results and take the average. (Personally REALLY do not like GB5.)

 

[gsurf123]

Then IT is doing it's job.

There are no other software products that will kill a machines performance like security software. Can take a decent computer and make it unusable.

 

[am2am]

Possibly, seems to be working better now under AC. Pretty happy with the scores. View attachment 882300

WOOW - what a result. I've never seen such on my i9 2.4, the highest I got was ~ 7300 multicore.

 

[redheeler]

Just for comparison to the maxed out 2017 imac in geekbench 5.

1222
Single-Core Score

4649
Multi-Core Score

So somehow this macbook pro is BETTER than a full fledged imac. Wow technology moves fast!

It helps that we've seen the first doubling of core count from Intel since 2011, when the first quad-core processors showed up in MBPs. It's a huge two-year performance leap after about five years of minor incremental ones, as Intel has been feeling the pressure more and more from AMD and rapidly-evolving mobile ARM processors.

 

[cap7ainclu7ch]

Has anyone else noticed lowered scores while plugged in? Seems bizarre but most of the time I'm pulling higher scores off battery.

 

[intrepidcase]

Have run a few GB5 tests ... getting somewhere around 1200 single-core, 7400 multi-core. 2.4 with 32GB

 

[danwells]

That's about what I'm getting - and the 16" isn't bad thermally (no, it's not a Mac Pro). Cinebench is within about 5-10% of an iMac Pro 8 core...

 

[bsbeamer]

Anyone have a benchmark app that tests METAL performance that is NOT Geekbench? A lot are testing OpenCL for GPU performance and that's officially depreciated in macOS Catalina.

 

[iemcj]

That's about what I'm getting - and the 16" isn't bad thermally (no, it's not a Mac Pro). Cinebench is within about 5-10% of an iMac Pro 8 core...

Dude that just seems crazy to me, wasn't it always the case that desktops were dollar for dollar like 1.5 times as powerful as their laptop equivalents? Cuz it seems to me this 16" mbp is in line with the full size imacs, especially in mulithreading apps.

 

[impulse462]

Dude that just seems crazy to me, wasn't it always the case that desktops were dollar for dollar like 1.5 times as powerful as their laptop equivalents? Cuz it seems to me this 16" mbp is in line with the full size imacs, especially in mulithreading apps.

its amazing what 0.3 inches can do

 

[Nacho98]

My i7 with 32 GB RAM just did:

1117/6013 single/multi on AC power
1118/6006 single/multi on battery

One of the stronger i7s I guess?

 

[Mojo1019]

Just done some run on my MacBook Pro 16":

i9 2.4 - 32GB Ram​	Single-Core Score​	Multi-Core Score​
1° run on AC​	1233​	7210​
2° run on AC​	1228​	7436​
3° run on battery​	1208​	7487​
4° run on battery​	1284​	7425​

 

[badsimian]

What was the consensus in the end? Not much difference between 2.3 and 2.4?

 

[bsbeamer]

GB 5.1 is out and all scores would need to be re-run with latest for true comparison.

Personally do not trust GB for METAL scores at all. See this for reports of various scores and how fickle the results are based on monitors being used.

MBP16,1 with RX 5700 XT via eGPU (Reports, Issues & Benchmarks)

Been running some tests with an MBP16,1 configured with 2.4GHz, 5500M 8GB, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD. Currently on 10.15.2. Have a Sonnet eGFX Breakaway Box 650 GPU-650WOC-TB3, which is the OC model that provides 100W power delivery (newest model). Been running a Sapphire Pulse RX 580 8GB in that...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[redheeler]

What was the consensus in the end? Not much difference between 2.3 and 2.4?

There isn't much difference. My 2.3 GHz base i9 scored ~7,100 while the 2.4 GHz is getting ~7,400 in multi-core from what others in this thread have reported. You aren't going to see much of a real-world benefit from a small increase like that, unless your workflow involves a lot of CPU-intensive tasks.

Meanwhile, the 2.6 GHz base i7 is scoring under 6,000, so you get a much bigger difference going from the base i7 to the base i9. If you're already getting the 1 TB SSD and 5500M GPU, the base i9 is worth the difference.

 

[Corncab44]

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.