Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2018 MacBook Pros - Benchmarks Only

ashcairo said:
421.66

15"/i9/32GB
Click to expand...

GerritB said:
512 ± 5% on an i9/32gb/1tb in Safari.
Click to expand...

jmoore5196 said:
Just for perspective: 468.64 on a 2016 2.9 15" MBP.
Click to expand...



Thanks folks. Wonder why the discrepancy between the first two?

Can someone with a 2018 MBP 13" show how its GPU (Iris Plus 655) scores?


frou said:
I'd appreciate it if both 2018 MBP13 & 2018 MBP15 owners could test browser 2D graphics performance.

Use Safari, put it in full-screen mode, and run the MotionMark browser benchmark:

https://browserbench.org/MotionMark/
Click to expand...
 
I ran it on my 13" 2016 8GB 256HD Touch Bar with Iris 550 Graphics in Safari and 418.68
Just for perspective 🙂
 
  • Like
Reactions: frou
RumorConsumer said:
Whats your deciding factor at this point?
Click to expand...

After all the comparisons and tests I have seen the i9 doesn’t make a lot of sense if you do work which will strain your CPU for a long period of time.
They seem to get hot and can’t give you anymore power than the i7s do.

The i7s seem to perform as expected and will have enough power for me.

I will get 32GB ram, 560x graphics and 2TB SSD. That should do the trick for the next 3 to 4 years for me.
I’m upgrading from my early 2012 MBP (pre Retina) so it’ll be a huge step up for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leman and RumorConsumer
frou said:
Thanks folks. Wonder why the discrepancy between the first two?
Click to expand...
Not sure, tbh I had Parallels Word and SPSS running in the background as well, so it wasn't like it was the only thing the Macbook was working on. Quite a mesmerizing benchmark to look at though 🙂
 
Jorg1312 said:
After all the comparisons and tests I have seen the i9 doesn’t make a lot of sense if you do work which will strain your CPU for a long period of time.
They seem to get hot and can’t give you anymore power than the i7s do.

The i7s seem to perform as expected and will have enough power for me.

I will get 32GB ram, 560x graphics and 2TB SSD. That should do the trick for the next 3 to 4 years for me.
I’m upgrading from my early 2012 MBP (pre Retina) so it’ll be a huge step up for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah I hear you and Id bend towards that exact config with the 1tb instead. Only thing.. if Apple irons out this CPU issue and the i9 gets some more room to stretch out we might see a longer distribution.
 
RumorConsumer said:
Yeah I hear you and Id bend towards that exact config with the 1tb instead. Only thing.. if Apple irons out this CPU issue and the i9 gets some more room to stretch out we might see a longer distribution.
Click to expand...

I just can’t see that happening simply due to the heat issue. Even if they crank the fans up and lower the voltage I don’t think it’s ever gonna be much faster than the i7s. If it turns out that it will be I guess I’ll still Ben happy with the i7 as they’re plenty fast.
 
RumorConsumer said:
Only thing.. if Apple irons out this CPU issue and the i9 gets some more room to stretch out we might see a longer distribution.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is really not Apple's issue but Intel's one. For some reason, Intel chose to configure these CPUs this way. Since it is essentially the same CPU core (just with different clocks), the max clock they can hit in sustained scenarios will be comparable. The only real "solution" to this I can see would be limiting max turbo of lower-tier CPUs under load, which would not necessarily be customer-friendly. Interestingly, prior to Coffe Lake Intel had more detailed differentiation of max turbo clocks that CPUs could hit under certain scenarios — this helped to differentiate them more; but it seems that they have changed it with Coffee Lake. A funny thing is that usually CPUs are binned so that parts with better power-performance curve end up as more expensive models, but so far, there doesn't seem to be a difference between an i7 and i9 — both reach similar clocks under similar power load.

And sure, Apple could also try improving the cooling solution so that they can dissipate say, 60-70 watt instead of the current 45-50 watt, but I don't think that this will really solve the CPU similarity issue — they will still perform similar to each other, since all of them would be able to get higher boost. And finally, if you want to take full advantage of the i9's potential, you need a desktop cooling solution since they get hotter than an average desktop CPU 🙂 Its a strange SKU indeed, and it shows how Intel is desperate to sell stuff. Anyway, the i9 does offer a healthy boost in short workloads, so it's a good choice for people like me who primarily work with short CPU-intensive workflows.
 
leman said:
Unfortunately, this is really not Apple's issue but Intel's one. For some reason, Intel chose to configure these CPUs this way. Since it is essentially the same CPU core (just with different clocks), the max clock they can hit in sustained scenarios will be comparable. The only real "solution" to this I can see would be limiting max turbo of lower-tier CPUs under load, which would not necessarily be customer-friendly. Interestingly, prior to Coffe Lake Intel had more detailed differentiation of max turbo clocks that CPUs could hit under certain scenarios — this helped to differentiate them more; but it seems that they have changed it with Coffee Lake. A funny thing is that usually CPUs are binned so that parts with better power-performance curve end up as more expensive models, but so far, there doesn't seem to be a difference between an i7 and i9 — both reach similar clocks under similar power load.

And sure, Apple could also try improving the cooling solution so that they can dissipate say, 60-70 watt instead of the current 45-50 watt, but I don't think that this will really solve the CPU similarity issue — they will still perform similar to each other, since all of them would be able to get higher boost. And finally, if you want to take full advantage of the i9's potential, you need a desktop cooling solution since they get hotter than an average desktop CPU 🙂 Its a strange SKU indeed, and it shows how Intel is desperate to sell stuff. Anyway, the i9 does offer a healthy boost in short workloads, so it's a good choice for people like me who primarily work with short CPU-intensive workflows.
Click to expand...
I could swear there are actual physical differences between i7 and i9... between differently clocked i7s you’re right but I dunno about between actual model numbers.
 
RumorConsumer said:
I could swear there are actual physical differences between i7 and i9... between differently clocked i7s you’re right but I dunno about between actual model numbers.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, the only hardware difference is that the i9 has 4MB more of cache. And some of Intel's extensions, like vPro and TXT being disabled on i9 for some reason (which doesn't matter since Apple doesn't use them anyway) — but I think these are set in the CPU's firmware rather then in hardware.
 
Don't mean to rain on your guys' parade but I returned my MBP and got a Dell XPS 9570 with the 2.2 i7.

Cinebench: 1258 on average. Temps never go above 85c. Clock speeds maintain 3.88GHz even when running Prime95 for extended amounts of time.

I will miss OSX for sure. Thankfully I still have my old trusty 2013 13" MBP for when I get that itch .
 
  • Like
Reactions: RumorConsumer
uecker87 said:
Don't mean to rain on your guys' parade but I returned my MBP and got a Dell XPS 9570 with the 2.2 i7.

Cinebench: 1258 on average. Temps never go above 85c. Clock speeds maintain 3.88GHz even when running Prime95 for extended amounts of time.

I will miss OSX for sure. Thankfully I still have my old trusty 2013 13" MBP for when I get that itch .
Click to expand...
A fair and legal play.
 
uecker87 said:
Don't mean to rain on your guys' parade but I returned my MBP and got a Dell XPS 9570 with the 2.2 i7.

Cinebench: 1258 on average. Temps never go above 85c. Clock speeds maintain 3.88GHz even when running Prime95 for extended amounts of time.

I will miss OSX for sure. Thankfully I still have my old trusty 2013 13" MBP for when I get that itch .
Click to expand...
If there was a way to get MacOS on those machine's I might do the same at this point.
 
upandown said:
13" i7/16/1tb

MotionMark
372
Click to expand...

That seems quite low.
I just ran it with the same machine 13" i7/16/1TB and got a score of 449 ±6.70%

MotionMark.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back