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.
Benchmarks Suggest 16-Inch MacBook Pro Will Have 9th-Gen Intel Processors With Up to 32GB of RAM and AMD Radeon Pro 5500M Graphics
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The new GPU is just about twice as fast as the 560X according to Apple, and the Geekbench score backs that up. Great news!
I'll run another compute on mine, the 5500 is benching higher. The Vega20 is much closer but the 5500 still ahead by a good 5,000 from my score several months ago.
But yes, improvements in performance anywhere is great news.
You should visit a professional audio studio and see if you want to revise this statement.
I used GeekBench 5 to test my 2018 15” MacBook Pro which has a 560X, it scored about half the new 5500 in OpenCL:
So what are the Geekbench 4 Multicore scores so we can compare them?
Ahead of the imminent launch of Apple's new 16-inch MacBook Pro, several benchmark results have appeared on Geekbench that allegedly come from a Mac model designated "MacBookPro16,1" and, if true, confirm some of the machine's rumored hardware specifications.
Many of the results indicate that the 16-inch MacBook Pro will feature Intel 9th-generation Coffee Lake Refresh processors, which would be in line with the 15-inch MacBook Pro released in May. Some benchmarks show an 8-core Core i9 processor with a 2.4GHz base clock speed.
In addition, OpenCL scores list the machines as having Radeon Pro 5300M and 5500M graphics, and up to 32GB RAM. We've spotted references to Radeon Pro 5300M and 5500M in macOS Catalina code, so there's a good chance these are legit.
Article Link: Benchmarks Suggest 16-Inch MacBook Pro Will Have 9th-Gen Intel Processors With Up to 32GB of RAM and AMD Radeon Pro 5500M Graphics
AMD Radeon™ Pro 5000M Series Mobile GPUs Bring High-Performance AMD RDNA Architecture to Apple’s New 16-inch MacBook Pro
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Nov. 13, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- AMD (NASDAQ: AMD) today announced that the latest Apple MacBook Pro features the new AMD Radeon™...
If you're using a mix of docked, clamshell and mobility this matters if you're considering consolidating. Particularly given the increasing commonality of an eGPU to enhance laptops docked at workstations.
Well, I am. I held off the previous generation because it was faulty by design. Also, I just came back from one of the top-end color grading suites and they're using a cheese grater Mac Pro configured with some insane specs. High spec machines actually stay relevant much longer than your average consumer MacBook Air. A 10 year old top spec Mac Pro will still outperform anything you can buy today. My 6 year old MacBook Pro can still handle grading raw footage fairly well, though it can't play it back smoothly, hence the need for an upgrade.
I may not be considered a good "pro" then, I have 4 businesses (60+ workstations) with a majority being 6-9 year old computers that are still getting the job done perfectly fine.
I have a total cost of ownership per workstation I have to think of and pay for. So until the performance of the machine is costing money to operate and inhibiting production, it does not get replaced.
Just tested my 2019 15" Vega20 scored 23,555. So, my math be off a bit, is that about a 24% increase the 5500 has with a 29,230? Not bad. Roughly 84-85% over the 560X.
Attachments
Yep!
Marco said that the 8-core 16" MBP can compile Overcast in about the same time as his 10-core iMac Pro.
Very impressive for a thin portable Mac.
I'm not sure if all other workloads will also see such amazing performance... but it's a good indicator!
That is a nice gain, and I was just thinking how the 5500M is only $100 extra over the 5300M for the base $2399 model, and standard on the $2799 model. The Vega 20 was a $350 upgrade over the 560X.
I wonder how the 5300M will compare?
The anchor text is not clear but they are here: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?q=MacBookPro16,1
The 2018 Mac Mini with the Core i7-8700B (3.2 GHz) is competitive with the base model of the new 16 inch MBP.
I suspect one reason we didn't get an update to the mini this year was to keep the focus on the MBP and its performance enhancements. An updated mini processor would have outpaced performance on the 16 MBP and I do think there is a reasonable case to be made for a desktop machine versus a laptop for some customers.
No it won't.
[automerge]1574429932[/automerge]
Yeah fair enough - my mate still runs an Atari for sequencing quite often. However there's a big difference between a workstation machine and a MacBook. I'd expect any mobile device in 6 years to be struggling to keep up with the latest methods of doing things. It has mobile chips, mobile ram, heavy thermal restrictions (compared to a desktop system), more breakable parts, a much more harsh day to day environment and a battery which degrades. Not to mention mobile perform increases a lot faster than the desktop counterparts. 6 years in laptop terms is a hell of a long time.
Last edited:
ALL processors for MacPro5,1 and earlier (that is 2010/2012 model) are EOL'd by Intel and are no longer being issued microcode updates. Basically these machines will become vulnerable to every single security threat that is not patched, starting with and including MDS.
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...rmation/SA00233-microcode-update-guidance.pdf
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...rmation/SA00233-microcode-update-guidance.pdf
The top-spec Mac Pro from late 2009 is two X5570 CPUs with eight cores total.
At single-core, it scores 558. The top-spec MacBook Pro from May scores 1138. At dual-core, it scores 3828, and the top-spec MacBook Pro from May (which also has eight cores) scores 6892.
So the Mac Pro makes better use of its cores (a factor of 6.86, which ideally would be 8) than the MacBook Pro (only a factor of 6.06). But ultimately, it doesn't even come close to the performance.
That ignores other factors that have improved: the Mac Pro's memory runs 4.8 GT/s; the MacBook Pro's at 8 GT/s. The memory runs at 1066 MHz vs. 2400 MHz (and 2667 MHz on the November MacBook Pro). The Mac Pro, even at the top end, shipped with a 2TB spinning disk; the MacBook Pro's SSD will utterly destroy it.
Thunderbolt 3 vs. FireWire 800. USB 3.1 vs. USB 2.0(!). Even the Wi-Fi is way faster.
Yeah, you can put a high-end GPU in there, and also a decent SSD (though even then, you'd actually be limited to SATA 2 and PCIe 2). But then, you could also hook up a nice GPU vs. Thunderbolt.
So… nah.
The majority of people talking about top spec for MP4,1 are machines "hacked" to ID as MP5,1 and using dual X5690's as their CPUs. Regardless, this is now getting way off topic for the 16" MBP...
A machine with a processor that wasn't even sold until Q1 2011 is not a "top-spec Mac Pro from late 2009".