I did some digging. Turns out that the lower end MBP 2019 is the first quad-core with a single fan. The dual-core 2016/2017 appears to have been single fan too, but the quad-core 2018 was dual fan. So the chassis and CPU of the entry level MBP 2019 13" is a mix between the two. How far the extra fan differentiates between 2.4 and 1.4 under sustained load needs to be seen. Geekbench is not a good enough indicator in my view, after all it did inflate the performance of Macbook 12" quite a bit in my experience: I use to score well in the unit I kept between returning, but was faced with all manner of lags in normal office use.
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.
2019 13” MBP 1.4ghz quad-core benchmarks?
- Thread starter pshady
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd be interested in seeing how the 1.7ghz model fares. I wonder if it's like the upgrades in the Macbook which just ended up getting throttled to similar speeds. Not really seen any mention of it.
Ah found one result, which isn't so great.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=8557u
SC: 4835
MC: 15515
Ah found one result, which isn't so great.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=8557u
SC: 4835
MC: 15515
Last edited:
I finally finished my benchmarks and modded the MacBook with added thermal pads between the heatsink and the bottom aluminum. In conclusion, the MacBook runs up to 15C cooler and perform between 5-10% faster on long and demanding workloads.
Temp idle stock:
Temp idle Mod:
Cinebench R15
Run1 stock:
Run1 Mod:
Look at the temperature difference when compared to stock! As a result, higher peak performance.
Run2 stock:
Chip got very hot and fan was not spinning. Score dropped significantly (to 615).
Run 2 Mod:
Temperature still below 80C and score is higher than "Run1 stock".
Run6 stock:
Fan finally kicked in (since run4) and score went slightly up. Temps still reach 98C
Run6 Mod:
On the 6th run, performance is still on par with "Run1 stock" with temps below 90C.
Geekbench Stock:
Geekbench Mod:
Temp idle stock:
Temp idle Mod:
Cinebench R15
Run1 stock:
Run1 Mod:
Look at the temperature difference when compared to stock! As a result, higher peak performance.
Run2 stock:
Chip got very hot and fan was not spinning. Score dropped significantly (to 615).
Run 2 Mod:
Temperature still below 80C and score is higher than "Run1 stock".
Run6 stock:
Fan finally kicked in (since run4) and score went slightly up. Temps still reach 98C
Run6 Mod:
On the 6th run, performance is still on par with "Run1 stock" with temps below 90C.
Geekbench Stock:
Geekbench Mod:
Last edited:
Perhaps, but will we really notice it in real world applications? For my needs not likely.
It will make significant difference if u are doing video editing, cutting videos depends a lot on write speed.
It is obvious that 128gb model will have much slower than 256gb or 512gb and above due to the characteristics of ssd.
It will be marginally slower.
But that’s not the point
Reviews of the mid 2018 MacBook Pro with the 256gb SSD show read speeds up to 2500mb/sec and write at 1200mb/sec
I haven’t see any 2019 entry level MacBook Pro 256gb test yet. Most are done on the 128gb models but the difference is not going to be anywhere close to the above
Essentially you are getting a drive half as fast IMO
But that’s not the point
Reviews of the mid 2018 MacBook Pro with the 256gb SSD show read speeds up to 2500mb/sec and write at 1200mb/sec
I haven’t see any 2019 entry level MacBook Pro 256gb test yet. Most are done on the 128gb models but the difference is not going to be anywhere close to the above
Essentially you are getting a drive half as fast IMO
I saw another review of 128GB version and there also write around 495 and read 1350 only. Anyone seen results for 256GB version? Surely 256 should normally have write speed double but read speed not so much difference but then it is a matter of the brand and model of the drive, so maybe 256 is better model. It is rather disappointing to see they have saved few cents in ssd cost now (they already had decent in Air 2018 but in new entry Pro even worse than that).
Also it would be interesting to see if similar test as CrystalDiskMark would be found for new Pro, since that kind of tests also check important small file size speed where most drives will do only 20-70MB speed and usually that tests tells most about real world performance under OS, large file transfer speed is usually not so important.
Anyway, results for 128GB seem rather poor considering even my current Air 2018 with 128GB gives about the same for write and read over 1800! That's with 5GB test size (default Blackmagic test).
I was thinking about 128 vs 256 when I was placing an order but I finally decided not to pay insane premium for additional size as it is not from this world (if you look at ssd drive prices 128 vs 256 is only few tens of dollars and you can actually buy several 256 drives for the price of a difference Apple charges). I was just now considering again the speed difference and that can I really get by with only 128GB size. Is it future proof if I'm not storing much additional data instead of just programs I use? I my Windows desktop I have 256GB OS drive with about 72GB data (but I have additional spinning drives inside my desktop for data and other stuff), so based on that I should be fine with 128GB in MacBook.
Also I'm interested about display quality of new entry Pro. Is display quality good in term of uniformity (do you see variation in hue or brightness in different parts of the screen when you display white or grey full screen image and does brightness appear the same in all areas of the screen) and backlight bleed (when you display full screen black image in dark room and test it with different screen brightness levels do you see flashlight effect or brighter parts somewhere or is it completely even)?
Also it would be interesting to see if similar test as CrystalDiskMark would be found for new Pro, since that kind of tests also check important small file size speed where most drives will do only 20-70MB speed and usually that tests tells most about real world performance under OS, large file transfer speed is usually not so important.
Anyway, results for 128GB seem rather poor considering even my current Air 2018 with 128GB gives about the same for write and read over 1800! That's with 5GB test size (default Blackmagic test).
I was thinking about 128 vs 256 when I was placing an order but I finally decided not to pay insane premium for additional size as it is not from this world (if you look at ssd drive prices 128 vs 256 is only few tens of dollars and you can actually buy several 256 drives for the price of a difference Apple charges). I was just now considering again the speed difference and that can I really get by with only 128GB size. Is it future proof if I'm not storing much additional data instead of just programs I use? I my Windows desktop I have 256GB OS drive with about 72GB data (but I have additional spinning drives inside my desktop for data and other stuff), so based on that I should be fine with 128GB in MacBook.
Also I'm interested about display quality of new entry Pro. Is display quality good in term of uniformity (do you see variation in hue or brightness in different parts of the screen when you display white or grey full screen image and does brightness appear the same in all areas of the screen) and backlight bleed (when you display full screen black image in dark room and test it with different screen brightness levels do you see flashlight effect or brighter parts somewhere or is it completely even)?
Last edited:
Most likely Apple cheaped out by using the same density NAND as the higher capacity drives to lower costs on the 128gb model, when you do that you kill the performance as SSD drives get their speed by parallel access.
How's the noise though considering the smaller heatsink and 1 less fan than the higher end 13" pro? That's what turned me off on the previous lower end 13" pro...
I also have the high end 2018 2.3-3.8 GHz version. The noise levels are the same. However, modding the MacBook completely eliminates the fan noise.
Is there any info about NAND type they use in entry Pro ssd 128GB and/or 256GB models? Especially I'm interested about write endurance?
[doublepost=1563027718][/doublepost]
Also I can see from the photos of a mobo that Pro has identical empty space on both sides next to the NAND chips so obviously there is room for at least some size SSD's to have 4 chips but based on Air mobo there does not seems to be room for additional NAND chips (but it maybe that mobo is slightly different in higher capacity models).
[doublepost=1563027718][/doublepost]
Yes, there is probably less physical memory chips in 128GB model but still if I compare iFixit teardowns between Air 2018 128GB and new entry level Pro 128GB it shows that they both have 2 chips, so they use the same density NAND but obviously Air 2018 is faster (I have one and I have tested it even myself and I easily get over 1800 read speeds). Only difference based on iFixit teardown is the brand of the chips, Air is Sandisk and Pro is Toshiba.
Also I can see from the photos of a mobo that Pro has identical empty space on both sides next to the NAND chips so obviously there is room for at least some size SSD's to have 4 chips but based on Air mobo there does not seems to be room for additional NAND chips (but it maybe that mobo is slightly different in higher capacity models).
Last edited:
That is much better in write speed (you used 5GB test size?) but still read speed under Air 2018 128GB. But still pretty poor compared to similar drives sold separately.
But still results for 256GB are rather poor if you compare it to any currently separately sold ssd pcie drives. They are easily 2x faster or more.
But still results for 256GB are rather poor if you compare it to any currently separately sold ssd pcie drives. They are easily 2x faster or more.
Last edited:
It does seem crazy. But that’s why we need proper reviews that document a whole series of stats. A review that runs cinebench and geekbench is pretty inconclusive.
i'm pretty sure sustained performance is much worse on the 1.4 one.
it's both 8th gen, same enclosure, but one has double the cooling capability.
if 1.4 would perform the same as 2.4 that would mean that 1.4 somehow bends the rules of physics.
however... yet to be proven.
2.4 GHz has 28W TDP and 1.4 GHz has 15W TDP... But Intel’s turbo boost is rising power consumption higher than CPU’s TDP. So factor is what you can cool (and even with one fan the cooling system is capable of cooling 30W (by test done by NBAasDOGG in this thread). So the CPU turbo boosts high in long workloads (about 3GHz) and it is not much different from what is turbo boosting 2.4 GHz CPU...
Since turbo is capped by cooling you're saying single fan system cools almost as efficiently as the two fan system in the same enclosure, and that 28W chip is essentially pointless and should be thrown in the garbage?
Is it impossible that a one fan system can cool as well as a two fan system? It doesn’t seem too likely but certainly it wouldn’t be impossible.