2018 i7 MacBook Pro throttling discussion.

[mr.anthonyramos]

Thanks for doing that. Going to run it on my computer later and see what I get.

Just ran this on my collague’s 2.6 (post patch) and its getting 6 mins 57 seconds. Tried rerunning a few times and stays around the 6 mins 50 second mark.

 

[Geezy2]

Thanks! Indeed there have been background processes that I have canceled. New score is 1020. Still, I dont see see need for the mid tier-cpu. Gonna wait a few days to see more samples but so far the uplift in pricing isn't justified really.

From what I’ve been reading I tend to agree with you. The baseline 2.2 seems to provide a better cost value. The very marginal increase in performance is not worth the additional cost.

 

[M.Rizk]

From what I’ve been reading I tend to agree with you. The baseline 2.2 seems to provide a better cost value. The very marginal increase in performance is not worth the additional cost.

The 2.6 is just $80 more so not going to break a wallet probably. We also still need to see real life comparison between all 3. This should include video editing, compiling apps and other processor intensive tasks (not benchmarks).

 

[Geezy2]

The 2.6 is just $80 more so not going to break a wallet probably. We also still need to see real life comparison between all 3. This should include video editing, compiling apps and other processor intensive tasks (not benchmarks).

It’s $400 more in the US Apple store.

 

[uecker87]

It’s $400 more in the US Apple store.

If you go with the pre-config. If you choose the base model and do a BTO you can upgrade it for $100 (or $80 with the education discount).

 

[Viper-FFM]

From what I’ve been reading I tend to agree with you. The baseline 2.2 seems to provide a better cost value. The very marginal increase in performance is not worth the additional cost.

Yeah, difference becomes less when you upgrade the 2,2 version with the AMD 560. However, I still haven't found any information about the clock speeds of 555X vs 560X and sharing the same memory capacity, I assume that the 560X is only boosted slightly over the base 555x. I can live without that I guess.

Plus: In any test my processor hasn't reached nearly the full boost clock. Highest was 4,05 GhZ

 

[Geezy2]

If you go with the pre-config. If you choose the base model and do a BTO you can upgrade it for $100 (or $80 with the education discount).

For some reason, my select configuration of the baseline only offers the 2.2 i7 or the i9. No option for the 2.6.

Are you in the US?

 

[Viper-FFM]

I guess we will see a noticeable performance jump furthermore once people swap the thermal past

 

[Vazza]

Would you guys bother upgrading the GPU to the 560x if you were going to get the base 15” i7. £85 to upgrade seems OK? I won’t ever use the extra 10% reastically probably though but that seems a cheap upgrade.

 

[Viper-FFM]

Would you guys bother upgrading the GPU to the 560x if you were going to get the base 15” i7. £85 to upgrade seems OK? I won’t ever use the extra 10% reastically probably though but that seems a cheap upgrade.

Nope. I highly doubt you get even a 5% performance upgrade from that slightly higher clock speed when it comes to Gaming or 3D. Plus it will draw more power.

 

[Aea]

I think the 560X has 33% more cores over the 555X and slightly higher clock speeds on those cores. Unless your workload is heavy or you're playing games you probably won't see any difference between the two.

 

[jafico1]

I just ran Cinebench on my 2.6GHz i7 560X 512GB MBP, and my numbers seem pretty disappointing even after I've installed the update - I'm getting around 920 on average, and I've included a screenshot with Power Gadget on the screen.

I haven't yet tried after the update, but the game Cities: Skylines was absolutely unplayable as well, getting random freezes every 2 seconds or so. This even happened when the graphics were turned down to their lowest settings at 1680x1050, which is even more disappointing given the dedicated GPU. I'll reinstall the game and report back and see if the update has fixed this.

 

[iamMacPerson]

Would any of the 2.6ghz owners (32gb or 16gb) mind chiming in with their CPU temperature at idle with no apps running?

Mine seems excessively hot at 60 degrees celsius with just the Intel Power Gadget running. My 2013 13" i5 MBP is 38 degrees celsius at idle.

Is my computer bad? Thermal paste wrong?

It's in an air conditioned office.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry to interrupt the benchmark posts.

Are there any tasks running in the background? My machine, on my lap browsing with Safari, it is currently idling around 43-44C (110-111F). That's been about average on this machine, which is running about 4C (~10F) cooler than my 2015 base model 15".
[doublepost=1532478195][/doublepost]

I just ran Cinebench on my 2.6GHz i7 560X 512GB MBP, and my numbers seem pretty disappointing even after I've installed the update - I'm getting around 920 on average, and I've included a screenshot with Power Gadget on the screen.

I haven't yet tried after the update, but the game Cities: Skylines was absolutely unplayable as well, getting random freezes every 2 seconds or so. This even happened when the graphics were turned down to their lowest settings at 1680x1050, which is even more disappointing given the dedicated GPU. I'll reinstall the game and report back and see if the update has fixed this.

Use Macs Fan Control to boost the fans to their max and set it up on a flat table or elevate it with a stand if possible. The performance without manually cranking the fans is abysmal, something I wish Apple would change.

 

[uecker87]

For some reason, my select configuration of the baseline only offers the 2.2 i7 or the i9. No option for the 2.6.

Are you in the US?

Yeah I am. Just had a brain fart. Yeah you are right. You can't just upgrade to the 2.6. My bad. 🙁

 

[Aea]

Are there any tasks running in the background? My machine, on my lap browsing with Safari, it is currently idling around 43-44C (110-111F). That's been about average on this machine, which is running about 4C (~10F) cooler than my 2015 base model 15".
[doublepost=1532478195][/doublepost]

Use Macs Fan Control to boost the fans to their max and set it up on a flat table or elevate it with a stand if possible. The performance without manually cranking the fans is abysmal, something I wish Apple would change.

My testing (pre-patch) did not support this. The fans take a while to spin up but the difference between automatic fans and maximum fans (at least in the 2018 i9) were statistically insignificant.

 

[jafico1]

My testing (pre-patch) did not support this. The fans take a while to spin up but the difference between automatic fans and maximum fans (at least in the 2018 i9) were statistically insignificant.

I'm with you there - I ran Cinebench 3 times with max fan speed, and got scores of 996, 932, and 948. Perhaps there's a marginal improvement but it's still disappointing - this was with the laptop held vertically, with no vents blocked, plugged into the mains.

 

[Geezy2]

Yeah I am. Just had a brain fart. Yeah you are right. You can't just upgrade to the 2.6. My bad. 🙁

Ha no worries. If it was $80 more I would’ve done it in a heartbeat. But $400 more for marginal gain in the 2.6 vs the 2.2, is not worth it IMO.

 

[M.Rizk]

Ha no worries. If it was $80 more I would’ve done it in a heartbeat. But $400 more for marginal gain in the 2.6 vs the 2.2, is not worth it IMO.

The $400 includes 256 GB more of SSD storage too (and 560X but we do not know how much of a difference it offers when compared to 555X yet).

 

[Elektrofone]

Just ran this on my collague’s 2.6 (post patch) and its getting 6 mins 57 seconds. Tried rerunning a few times and stays around the 6 mins 50 second mark.

Thanks for doing that. Can I ask is his a 16GB or 32GB?

I just ran it on my i9, 32GB before and after patch. Before I got 6 Mins, 45 Secs and after I got a whopping 6 Mins, 38 Secs. That compared to your coworkers 6 Mins, 57 Secs makes me think I'm gonna have to return this model. At least for my workflow the extra $400 is not worth it.

Edit: Ran it another time after computer was heated up and it's 6 Mins, 50 Secs.

 

[wallysb01]

The $400 includes 256 GB more of SSD storage too (and 560X but we do not know how much of a difference it offers when compared to 555X yet).

Just depends on what you value. I'd certainly go for at least the 512 GB, but I don't care about the 555X vs 560X (it'd be kind of nice to not have a dGPU at all for me, actually). So my options are 2.2/32/512/55X at $2,789 or 2.6/32/512/560X at $2,959. Now, I know the 560X won't be totally worthless to me and might provide the so called "future proofing", but then you multiply by 1.10 for sales tax and its 3067 vs 3254, and its basically $200 different. That pays for about 2/3 of AppleCare, and I'd rather have AppleCare than the 2.6, if I had to choose.

 

[sk8r1230]

im curious why everyone recommends the 32 gigs of ram. i feel like so many people blindly select that without actually looking at their current ram usage.

 

[uecker87]

Thanks for doing that. Can I ask is his a 16GB or 32GB?

I just ran it on my i9, 32GB before and after patch. Before I got 6 Mins, 45 Secs and after I got a whopping 6 Mins, 38 Secs. That compared to your coworkers 6 Mins, 57 Secs makes me think I'm gonna have to return this model. At least for my workflow the extra $400 is not worth it.

Edit: Ran it another time after computer was heated up and it's 6 Mins, 50 Secs.

Wow. Yeah 6m27s on the lowest base 15" from my test. I still think that program is only using four cores based on the CPU usage... Or it is getting maxed out by the GPU? But I have the 555X so yours should still be faster. Strange.
[doublepost=1532480275][/doublepost]

im curious why everyone recommends the 32 gigs of ram. i feel like so many people blindly select that without actually looking at their current ram usage.

I think it just depends on use cases. 32GB would be absolute overkill for me. 16 is plenty. I only have 16GB on my beast of a desktop PC (which I could add RAM to if needed extremely easily since I still have two open slots). But I get why some people might need it.

 

[Aea]

im curious why everyone recommends the 32 gigs of ram. i feel like so many people blindly select that without actually looking at their current ram usage.

Electron mostly.

 

[Elektrofone]

Wow. Yeah 6m27s on the lowest base 15" from my test. I still think that program is only using four cores based on the CPU usage... Or it is getting maxed out by the GPU? But I have the 555X so yours should still be faster. Strange.
[doublepost=1532480275][/doublepost]
I think it just depends on use cases. 32GB would be absolute overkill for me. 16 is plenty. I only have 16GB on my beast of a desktop PC (which I could add RAM to if needed extremely easily since I still have two open slots). But I get why some people might need it.

Yeah. I’m running some tests with After Effects right now and I think I’m starting to realize I might have bit off more than I can chew with this 2.9GHz i9, 32GB, 1TB model. I think I’m gonna return it for the mid level model.

 

[littlepud]

The $400 includes 256 GB more of SSD storage too (and 560X but we do not know how much of a difference it offers when compared to 555X yet).

560X has 1024 stream processing cores vs. 768 cores in the 555X, if they're anything like 555/560 or 455/460.