All the Apple BS aside....which should I choose

[semajm85]

I've got the i9/32gb/1tb model on hand..All nicely setup and chugging away fine. It's been handling my usage relatively well and I haven't noticed any anomalies.

I have been running my own tests and to no surprise it does thermal throttle. Best result I've got is disabling turboboost and it stays 2.9ghz in cinrbench and prime.

Now, with all the thermal throttling hoohah, storage and ram aside, money aside, is the macbook pro with the i9 still the most powerful MacBook u can buy?

I just waanna get what's best now as I won't be u upgrading for the next 3-5 years. And I need it now.

 

[shyam09]

Well if you keep all that "hoohah" aside, then yep.

 

[semajm85]

I'm seriously contemplating downgrasding to the 2.2 model ....sees like the only one that has the least issue

 

[BayouTiger]

I think there is way too much overreaction on these boards to every little issue. I have been getting my loaded 13 loaded up and all I know is that it is crazy fast in my daily usage. Most of my really heavy lifting is actually done in a Windows VM with only 4 cores assigned. I only need the speed off these rendering calculation to be reasonably fast as I am generally working on other stuff on the Mac side while they run.

 

[Closingracer]

I think there is way too much overreaction on these boards to every little issue. I have been getting my loaded 13 loaded up and all I know is that it is crazy fast in my daily usage. Most of my really heavy lifting is actually done in a Windows VM with only 4 cores assigned. I only need the speed off these rendering calculation to be reasonably fast as I am generally working on other stuff on the Mac side while they run.

I would say this i9 can’t be used in the current MacBooks. Considering how thin it is and the cooling system in place it’s no good. Just look at other machines with an i9 or any gaming laptop that isn’t trying to compromise on anything m. They are still thick to account for the heavy work loads. I would save the money and get the 2.2 ghz i7 or the 2.6 ghz i7 and/or get more storage if you want instead.

 

[Gudd]

Hang on, what? I haven't paid any attention to the new lineup as I'm not in the market for a new one. But the i7 is 2.2Ghz? Really? My 2017 i7 model is 3.5Ghz! Admittedly I don't remember if that is the turbo boosted speed?

[EDIT] Never mind. The 3.5 in "About" must be the turbo boost speed. That's crafty!

 

[Closingracer]

Hang on, what? I haven't paid any attention to the new lineup as I'm not in the market for a new one. But the i7 is 2.2Ghz? Really? My 2017 i7 model is 3.5Ghz! Admittedly I don't remember if that is the turbo boosted speed?

[EDIT] Never mind. The 3.5 in "About" must be the turbo boost speed. That's crafty!

The 2017 i7 could have 2.6 or 2.9 ghz base clock speed I think? The i7 in this years are 6 cores so it’s understandable slightly slower clock speeds per core base.

 

[Gudd]

Ah, OK - didn't spot the extra cores. No wonder these things are a bit thermally challenged There really isn't much space inside and I know the idea is that the aluminium chassis forms part of the cooling but a hot laptop is not a pleasant laptop.

I was always a bit annoyed that we had to settle for dual core on the i7's but the reality is that's it's always done everything I've needed very well so, meh.

Anyway, sorry for going OT. To the OP, I don't know how much extra the i9 cost or if it is important to you but I did learn some time ago that seemingly the top of the food chain isn't always the best when it comes to CPUs. IMO I'd say trying to put an i9 into something this thin seems crazy. But that's neither a technical, nor scientific appraisal in any way shape or form.

 

[roland.g]

I'm seriously contemplating downgrasding to the 2.2 model ....sees like the only one that has the least issue

I think unless you really need the power, the 2.2 will be fine. However, I think the hooey is just hooey and while you can throttle it in certain situations, I don't think you will find the i9 problematic in the long haul.

My guess is you will be quite happy for 3-5 years either way.

 

[Queen6]

Hang on, what? I haven't paid any attention to the new lineup as I'm not in the market for a new one. But the i7 is 2.2Ghz? Really? My 2017 i7 model is 3.5Ghz! Admittedly I don't remember if that is the turbo boosted speed?

[EDIT] Never mind. The 3.5 in "About" must be the turbo boost speed. That's crafty!

The 2.2GHz 8750H hex core Turbo's up to 4.1GHz and 3.9GHz on all cores and is astound 40% faster than the 7th Gen quad cores.

In a well designed chassis with adequate cooling the CPU will hold as high as 3.6GHz as long as is required.

Q-6

 

[mr.anthonyramos]

I've got the i9/32gb/1tb model on hand..All nicely setup and chugging away fine. It's been handling my usage relatively well and I haven't noticed any anomalies.

I have been running my own tests and to no surprise it does thermal throttle. Best result I've got is disabling turboboost and it stays 2.9ghz in cinrbench and prime.

Now, with all the thermal throttling hoohah, storage and ram aside, money aside, is the macbook pro with the i9 still the most powerful MacBook u can buy?

I just waanna get what's best now as I won't be u upgrading for the next 3-5 years. And I need it now.

What do you do with your MacBook Pro? In general yes the i9 is the most powerful even though it throttles. The key thing to remember is different scenarios will deliver different results. Currently I am happy and have been able to personally compare similar workflows with the 2018 2.6 i7 and the i9 is slightly faster maybe with a bit more optimization of the fan curve and software might even get better. but does the i9 give us users the power it promises? No not really. Not yet at least. It’s isn’t being used to it’s full promised potential.

So would I keep it? Yes I would.

 

[throAU]

I've got the i9/32gb/1tb model on hand..All nicely setup and chugging away fine. It's been handling my usage relatively well and I haven't noticed any anomalies.

I have been running my own tests and to no surprise it does thermal throttle. Best result I've got is disabling turboboost and it stays 2.9ghz in cinrbench and prime.

Now, with all the thermal throttling hoohah, storage and ram aside, money aside, is the macbook pro with the i9 still the most powerful MacBook u can buy?

I just waanna get what's best now as I won't be u upgrading for the next 3-5 years. And I need it now.

Objectively, it is no faster in heavy workloads than the quad core.

it is a lot more expensive.

Return it, get the quad core, put the difference in money back in the back and upgrade sooner with your savings.

 

[mr.anthonyramos]

Objectively, it is no faster in heavy workloads than the quad core.

it is a lot more expensive.

Return it, get the quad core, put the difference in money back in the back and upgrade sooner with your savings.

So you’re telling him to. Go 13 inch? He is asking what in general is the most powerful MacBook Pro available not how much money he can save.

And I doubt that your claim to absolution that the quad core chips are faster in heavy workloads is objective. Objectively, we cannot say for certain that the i9 is a slouch during heavy loads as various tests have shown different results, does it throttle, yes, does it mean that it’s (objectively) no faster than quad core cpus? This I highly doubt.

 

[throAU]

So you’re telling him to. Go 13 inch? He is asking what in general is the most powerful MacBook Pro available not how much money he can save.

And I doubt that your claim to absolution that the quad core chips are faster in heavy workloads is objective. Objectively, we cannot say for certain that the i9 is a slouch during heavy loads as various tests have shown different results, does it throttle, yes, does it mean that it’s (objectively) no faster than quad core cpus? This I highly doubt.

In benchmarks the i9 is outperformed by the i7 in the 15" form factor.

Should i get the crayons out?