2018 i7 MacBook Pro throttling discussion.

[iamMacPerson]

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.

Base Model MacBook Pro (2.2, 16GB, 555X, 256GB): $2399
560X Upgrade: $100
512GB SSD Upgrade: $200
Total: $2699

TOL Store-Bought MacBook Pro (2.6, 16GB, 560X, 512GB): $2799
560X Upgrade: Included
512GB SSD Upgrade: Included
Total: $2799

Price Difference: $100. So the 2.6GHz upgrade is $100 without the education discount.

 

[uecker87]

Base Model MacBook Pro (2.2, 16GB, 555X, 256GB): $2399
560X Upgrade: $100
512GB SSD Upgrade: $200
Total: $2699

TOL Store-Bought MacBook Pro (2.6, 16GB, 560X, 512GB): $2799
560X Upgrade: Included
512GB SSD Upgrade: Included
Total: $2799

Price Difference: $100. So the 2.6GHz upgrade is $100 without the education discount.

But... If you ONLY care about the 2.6GHz upgrade then you get forced into the other upgrades and it actually costs you $400. I see what you are saying too, but if the extra storage and graphics don't mean anything to you then it is a really pointless upgrade for just the upgraded processor.
[doublepost=1532481083][/doublepost]Just out of curiosity, what are people's idle temps looking like? For example just with a few Safari tabs open?

Now sure if it is just placebo effect after the update or what, but my idles are now down in the high 30s instead of the mid 40's I had been getting. This is on my 2.2 base model.

 

[jafico1]

Mine on the 2.6GHz are in the high 40s

 

[Elektrofone]

Mine on the 2.6GHz are in the high 40s

What's your Cinebench score?

 

[M.Rizk]

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

Yea I know but the real problem is how much of a difference we will get from such a thin machine to make it worth the price difference (along with the 2.6).

 

[jafico1]

What's your Cinebench score?

I posted them earlier, but around 920-940, depending on fan speed.

 

[wallysb01]

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.

For analysis of large data matrices in R. Data just keeps getting bigger and my 16GB is already struggling. I have an R session going now with 9GB active. I also periodically need to run command line tools (via python wrappers) that can get pretty RAM intensive. So currently 16GB is a struggle and in a year or two, 16GB will be completely inadequate.

 

[Elektrofone]

Just did some Cinebench runs on my i9 and I got

1075
1021
1013
1015
1011

 

[rainking]

 

[WristyManchego]

Yes. I’m surprised no ones done the comparisons yet.

Still need me to run the test?

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-for-2018-macbook-pro-models-updated.2129282/

 

[Elektrofone]

Still need me to run the test?

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-for-2018-macbook-pro-models-updated.2129282/

Yes. That would be greatly appreciated!

 

[komatta]

So do we know yet if there is an advantage to getting the 2.6ghz i7 instead of the base 2.2 (now that the patch is out)?

 

[vader26]

Just did some Cinebench runs on my i9 and I got

1075
1021
1013
1015
1011

Adding some more results to the mix, I just ran Cinebench 10 times in a row (post patch) on my 2.6 i7 16gig. Forgot to run the Intel Power Tool during, but could be helpful to some:

1095
1039
1026
1016
1008
997
1003
997
997
999

Before the patch, I don't think I once cracked 1000 even on the first run.

 

[Aea]

You're getting consistently better results than my i9 so that's something to happy with

 

[Elektrofone]

You're getting consistently better results than my i9 so that's something to happy with

My i9 is doing pretty well compared to yours.

 

[iamMacPerson]

But... If you ONLY care about the 2.6GHz upgrade then you get forced into the other upgrades and it actually costs you $400. I see what you are saying too, but if the extra storage and graphics don't mean anything to you then it is a really pointless upgrade for just the upgraded processor.

Right, but you're saying it's a $400 upgrade. It really isn't. Plus, I do not see people buying the 2.6GHz model JUST for the processor. It was for me, and I'm sure most other people, the most inconsequential upgrade. I paid the extra $400 for the SSD primarily. If people are really concerned about getting the best performance, they will bypass the i7s all together and go straight to the i9.

Just did some Cinebench runs on my i9 and I got

1075
1021
1013
1015
1011

That's honestly quite surprising. Your i9's last run compared to the my 2.6 i7's last run shows a performance increase of less than 5%. Their first (best) runs compared only show a 3% increase. I guess the question is if it's really worth the ~11% price difference between the i7 and i9.

 

[Elektrofone]

Right, but you're saying it's a $400 upgrade. It really isn't. Plus, I do not see people buying the 2.6GHz model JUST for the processor. It was for me, and I'm sure most other people, the most inconsequential upgrade. I paid the extra $400 for the SSD primarily. If people are really concerned about getting the best performance, they will bypass the i7s all together and go straight to the i9.



That's honestly quite surprising. Your i9's last run compared to the my 2.6 i7's last run shows a performance increase of less than 5%. Their first (best) runs compared only show a 3% increase. I guess the question is if it's really worth the ~11% price difference between the i7 and i9.

Yeah I’m struggling with that question too.

 

[sennomulo]

So do we know yet if there is an advantage to getting the 2.6ghz i7 instead of the base 2.2 (now that the patch is out)?

I suspect there will be a speed difference, but whether or not it is relevant or noticeable will depend on what you do with it, and it will be small in any case. This YouTuber has all three 15" models and is testing them with this patch. He should have detailed results on his channel in a couple days.

 

[zshane1125]

how much battery life can you save with lower powered and speed CPU?

 

[iamMacPerson]

how much battery life can you save with lower powered and speed CPU?

It really just depends. When idling, I don't think the Core i9 would use much more, if any, power than the i7s, but under intense tasks it might make a difference. It just depends what you plan on using it for. Personally I'm satisfied now with my 2.6GHz i7 after this update.

 

[macpcf]

Did anybody test the i7 2.2ghz model after the patch? Is there an improvement?

 

[M.Rizk]

Did anybody test the i7 2.2ghz model after the patch? Is there an improvement?

At least 3 posted updated benchmarks here. Take some time to read the last 4 pages.

 

[macpcf]

At least 3 posted updated benchmarks here. Take some time to read the last 4 pages.

Thanks
[doublepost=1532531211][/doublepost]

I'd say so, given my 2.2 is pulling 1014 on CineBench
View attachment 772603

This is promising

 

[Viper-FFM]

OK after playing around with my 2,6 Ghz i7 for two days I have decided to bring it back to the store tomorrow. Already ordered the 2,2 Ghz version and even managed to get my old student account working, so Ill save quite a bunch.

 

[CodeJoy]

Base Model MacBook Pro (2.2, 16GB, 555X, 256GB): $2399
560X Upgrade: $100
512GB SSD Upgrade: $200
Total: $2699

TOL Store-Bought MacBook Pro (2.6, 16GB, 560X, 512GB): $2799
560X Upgrade: Included
512GB SSD Upgrade: Included
Total: $2799

Price Difference: $100. So the 2.6GHz upgrade is $100 without the education discount.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that the relative price of the upgrades are different in different parts of the world. If the price difference were $200, would you still consider it a no-brainer?

In your calculation, the relative price for the 2.2->2.6 upgrade is 3.7% on top of the total cost (100/2699). In France and Germany it's 4.4% for the same comparison. In Finland it's 4.2%, in Denmark it's 3.8%, in Sweden it's 5.4% and in the UK it's 3.1%.

The actual value of the performance gain, I would say is something like $50. So in my view, you're always overpaying for what you get. But when you're paying $100, you're only paying 2X the value, and it's only $50 more. Big deal. But when you're paying $200 for the same upgrade, you're paying 4X of what it's worth. Do you agree that this makes a difference, and that the decision to upgrade or not may vary depending on your location?

For the 555X->560X it's similar, only in my opinion it's far worse. I would personally value the performance gain from the upgrade at ~$20. In the US you're paying $100 for this upgrade. So you're paying 5X of what it's worth. I mean... I can imagine use cases where every point performance gain counts. It's just that none of them apply to laptops, and even if they did you'd certainly get an eGPU instead. It's not the end of the world to get it, it's just a really really poor deal.

The SSD and RAM upgrades are similarly overpriced, but here it's at least easier for the upgrade to translate into some perceivable value. More RAM may mean you can solve larger problems. Sure, you're overpaying for the privilege, but you're still gaining a fair bit. More SSD, while you can always get by with external drives, having it inside the laptop is kinda the point of the laptop, so there's at least some decent value there even though you're still overpaying.

There's often the argument that if it's a business expense then it doesn't matter. Sure, the value of money becomes a lot smaller in that scenario, and it's effectively like having infinite money for the purposes of buying an MBP. So with infinite money, just pile on the upgrades and don't worry. But I also don't think people with infinite money are the ones debating in forums on whether to get a $100 upgrade or not.