Can someone with a 16” 8-core/8GB 5500m/32 or 64GB Ram please run this benchmark?

[M3Jedi77]

So glad to have found this thread - these are exactly the benchmarks I was looking for. I'm a photographer who was deciding between a 16" MBP (really wanted to do this) and a Mac Pro 7,1. Ended up with the Mac Pro which is now on my desk. It is the base model.

Still kind of hoping to be convinced to return it for the convenience of a MBP only setup.

Anyways, here are a few of my benchmarks if interested:

$1200 Gaming PC

2014 iMac

2019 Mac Pro

 

[bsbeamer]

Wow, the max RAM/CPU/GPU MBP16,1 and MP7,1 base model are way closer in this benchmark than I would have suspected. Knew there’s a risk that MP7,1 base would be “outscored” by a laptop from PC stats but does make me happy with MBP16,1 for now. If only Apple made an i9 desktop machine...

 

[syndr0me]

Kinda looks like the fully optioned 16” MBP outperforms the base 7,1 in this benchmark? This might help break a tie for me.
[automerge]1576429697[/automerge]
I’ll be interested in hearing how well the maxed out MBP can drive the XDR.

 

[Macshroomer]

Yeah, interesting on the base 7,1.

I finally got home to do this bench again on my 16" and my iMac Pro. It's interesting indeed as on raw file exports in Lightroom the iMac Pro soundly beats the MacBook Pro with a time of 2:35 over the MBP's 4:05 on exporting 100 45MP raw files to Jpeg-11.

But on the bench, they are much closer...

16" MBP 2.4 / 64GB / 8GB VRam / 4TB on fresh restart:

iMac Pro 10 core 3.0 / 128GB / 16GB VRam / 2TB on fresh restart:

The iMac Pro was and continues to be for me, a great value and will make it easy to wait a couple years on upgrading to a mid-spec Mac Pro 7,1. And of course, the new 16" is a heck of a productive option as a portable / backup.

 

[Z28McCrory]

It’s definitely interesting to see how the base 7,1 performs. I’d be curious to see a 7,1 with the 12 or 16 core, and a Vega II (or Radeon VII) by comparison. I imagine the CPU intensive tasks wouldn’t change by much (Pugents own test show 8 core i9 9900 to be the best performing in photoshop, and core count beyond that actually reduce performance. As for the GPU intensive tasks, I imagine those would see quite a benefit.

I wish Puget also had a bench for Capture One, because that’s the other software I use most often. I ran an unscientific test with my MP 6,1 and late 2013 rMBP. The test was ~160 Raw files from a 51 MP Fuji GFX, with lots of adjustments/sharpening/noise reduction, etc on the base layer, plus a second layer with a fairly aggressive color grade. The MP took around 3 minutes, whereas my rMBP took over 16 minutes. It was interesting to see on the MP it had 54 GB of Ram in use, whereas the rMBP was just having to create a huge page file (of roughly the same net size). Capture One seems to be able to utilize as many CPU cores as you can throw at it, and also use the GPU fairly effectively too.

All these tests have confirmed that for Photoshop work, a 16” MBP will keep up just fine... and if I want to justify the 7,1 purchase it’s only going to come into play on the video editing side of things (and possibly Capture One)

 

[syndr0me]

All I want is to alternate between a work-provided MBP and a reasonably powerful personal desktop using my same LG 5K setup, or future XDR setup. The options all have compromises. Mini has subpar GPU performance and an eGPU setup is inelegant and buggy. 16” MBP is good on paper but not a true desktop so it has thermal constraints and would spend its life docked which seems silly. MacPro is expensive, overkill for my needs, and appears to have lackluster performance for the price in its base config. My kingdom for an xMac or even a modern iMac with Target Display mode.

 

[Macshroomer]

16” MBP is good on paper but not a true desktop so it has thermal constraints and would spend its life docked which seems silly.

I think one of the things I am finding in actual use and has been much lauded is the thermal constraints are greatly reduced with a far better cooling system.

There are several videos that bear this out as well. Personally, I can't run my business as efficiently or securely with just a laptop or a desktop, I need both so I have both.

 

[syndr0me]

I think one of the things I am finding in actual use and has been much lauded is the thermal constraints are greatly reduced with a far better cooling system.

There are several videos that bear this out as well. Personally, I can't run my business as efficiently or securely with just a laptop or a desktop, I need both so I have both.

The numerous posts about fan noise while connected to an external monitor concern me. Good to hear it’s been working so well though. I’m definitely leaning in pretty hard on a maxed 16” as a desktop. Occasional portability is certainly a nice perk.

I’d really like to hear how well it handles a 6K monitor. Even if it’s not the XDR, presumably that tech will work its way down to consumers within the lifetime of the 16” MBP for me (~3 years).

 

[paulchiu]

just got my MacBook Pro 16 and waiting for my Pro Display XDR.
Here are PugetBench results

 

[paulchiu]

regarding above results. I did not stop non essential Mac OS operations and I used Siri and various bluetooth devices during the long test.

I am happy to say that the MacBook Pro 16 internal fan was not extremely loud even during the toughest part of this benchmark. Pretty much like a 5K iMac noise wise.

Hope this help you decide.

 

[Z28McCrory]

View attachment 882623

Left the default automatic graphics switching turned on, did NOT use performance mode of just 5500M. Power plugged in throughout the test.

MBP16,1 2.4/64GB/8GB/1TB

Other than restarting your computer (you later posted a new score that was considerably higher), did you change anything else to get the GPU score higher in your later test?

Not to bring this thread back from the dead, but I got my 16" MacBook Pro today, and my scores are almost identical to what you posted here. I have 2.3/64GB/8GB 5500M/1TB SSD.

According to iStat menus, the Radeon 5500M was active for this test. And it was plugged into power throughout the test. So I'm trying to figure out why I got 37.2 as my GPU score when most other similar equipped MBP's are getting 90+.

I have it set to automatic graphics switching, and it's been going back and forth. For example, Capture One 20 doesn't seem to make it switch at all... it stays with the Intel Graphics... then once I open an Adobe application it shows that it switches over to the 5500M. I really hope there isn't a bug in Catalina where the only way to get it to truly use the 5500M is to turn off auto switching.

The LuxMark scores also seem pretty low. I only got around 11,000 on the LuxBall test with the 5500M.

 

[bsbeamer]

Other than restarting your computer (you later posted a new score that was considerably higher), did you change anything else to get the GPU score higher in your later test?

If I recall, it was a full shutdown and restart.

If that does not work, try trashing your PS preferences and resetting. Someone who ran on a new MP7,1 had a similar issue with low scores and that fixed their issue.

 

[Z28McCrory]

If I recall, it was a full shutdown and restart.

If that does not work, try trashing your PS preferences and resetting. Someone who ran on a new MP7,1 had a similar issue with low scores and that fixed their issue.

Ok thanks for the quick reply. Did a shutdown and now trying again.

This is a fresh install of Photoshop, so hopefully the preferences aren't the issue.

Do you happen to also use Capture One? Trying to figure out if the auto graphics switching is a bug (when Capture One is the only thing open, it doesn't appear to switch over to the 5500M at all).

 

[bsbeamer]

I do not.

100% issues with METAL and AMD 5XXX series drivers in 10.15.2, but don’t think that’s impacted by auto graphics switching.