Geekbench Shows 2018 MacBook Pro Has Biggest Yearly Performance Gain Since 2011

[tyusrex]

@throAU, Apple has really painted itself into a corner by absolutely insisting on the thinnest, lightest design possible. This is forcing so many design compromises, it's laughable.

The keyboard isn't a real keyboard. The 'streamlined' ports require dongling up. Battery life in the 13" model is severely compromised. The touchbar forces use of a smaller battery as well. If you want to achieve higher level GPU performance, you will need an eGPU, the ultimate dongle.

Now we are learning that the MacBook Pro as well as the MacBook is throttled due to heat issues. Perfectly understandable on the 12" model. But on the 13 or 15" pro models? Unacceptable.

 

[PickUrPoison]

@throAU, Apple has really painted itself into a corner by absolutely insisting on the thinnest, lightest design possible. This is forcing so many design compromises, it's laughable.

The keyboard isn't a real keyboard. The 'streamlined' ports require dongling up. Battery life in the 13" model is severely compromised. The touchbar forces use of a smaller battery as well. If you want to achieve higher level GPU performance, you will need an eGPU, the ultimate dongle.

Now we are learning that the MacBook Pro as well as the MacBook is throttled due to heat issues. Perfectly understandable on the 12" model. But on the 13 or 15" pro models? Unacceptable.

Apple’s customers want thin and light, it’s not that Apple is forcing these machines on customers who would rather have thicker and heavier.

Apple balances CPU and GPU with the machine’s weight and run time. They have a solution that works for 80-90% of their potential customer base, it’s not going to satisfy everyone.

If you’re in the group that needs highest CPU performance with no throttling, regardless of impact on case size and fan noise, MBP is not for you. If you need higher GPU performance than a 35W budget can provide, or need nVIDIA, MBP is not for you. If you need longer lasting battery, regardless of it’s effect on weight and size, MBP is not for you. If you need a bunch of single-purpose ports instead of USB-C only, MBP is not for you. Likewise 4K screen, a fuller-travel keyboard, 64GB RAM, etc.

 

[throAU]

If you want thin and light with crap performance the macbook 12" already exists.

Slapping a "pro" badge on something with marginally better performance, that is 30% of the performance available elsewhere at the same or lower cost is a joke.

 

[Michael Scrip]

If you’re in the group that needs highest CPU performance with no throttling, regardless of impact on case size and fan noise, MBP is not for you. If you need higher GPU performance than a 35W budget can provide, or need nVIDIA, MBP is not for you. If you need longer lasting battery, regardless of it’s effect on weight and size, MBP is not for you. If you need a bunch of single-purpose ports instead of USB-C only, MBP is not for you. Likewise 4K screen, a fuller-travel keyboard, 64GB RAM, etc.

You're absolutely right. But the biggest issue is this:

If you need MacOS... then your ONLY options are laptops from Apple.

I see what you're saying though. If you need XYZ... then the Macbook Pro is not for you.

But there isn't another laptop above the Macbook Pro. That's the crux of the problem. Apple makes things thinner and less powerful which might be fine for most of their customers... but they don't offer a more powerful option for those who need it. So if you need MacOS... you're stuck with the choices Apple has made.

Windows users have it easy. If they don't like what Dell is offering... they'll take a look at HP or Lenovo. Plus... all of them have models ranging from thin-and-light to big heavy workstations.

I'm sure Dell doesn't sell very many of those 17" laptops that weigh 7 pounds. But damnit... they offer them.

I know, I know... Apple is about creating the perfect product for a majority of their customers. But it can get a little frustrating if you're outside that circle, ya know?

 

[danwat1234]

HEY, Surprise surprise. The i9 Macbook MASSIVELY throttles after sustained high loads... (https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rely-throttled-due-to-thermal-issues.2128055/ ) The geekbench multicore scores in this article are just good for maybe 1-2 minutes until full heat soak occurs, the CPU pegs at 90C and it throttles way way down...
The Macbook doesn't have fans that ramp up to jet engine level, so it will throttle hard. Simple physics. This Geekbench score is trickery and Apple is tricking the customer too in thinking they are getting a big upgrade vs the i7 model.

 

[Sefstah]

Start by plugging a lightning to usbc cable into a port, basically rocket science we know

Wow, right over your head bud! The point is, after spending $2.5k on a new MacBook Pro, and another $1k on an iPhone X, you aren’t able to plug it in right out of the box. You need to spend more money on a dongle. Which is pretty ridiculous.

 

[throAU]

I know, I know... Apple is about creating the perfect product for a majority of their customers. But it can get a little frustrating if you're outside that circle, ya know?

This, 100%.

Additionally, whilst the cost of things like retina screens, nice trackpads, good speakers, etc. have come down, Apple's prices have not. They are essentially charging more money for the same or worse quality (vs. their position in the market) hardware than they were 10 years ago.

In the PC market in the past few years, quality has come up (a lot) and prices have come down. Apple appear to have done the reverse.

In 2008-2013 i was arguing that the "apple tax" was minimal at best. This is most certainly no longer the case.

If you're an apple notebook customer in 2018 you are paying a lot more for objectively worse hardware than you get get in the PC market. It's no longer even close.

 

[H.Finch]

Really? this isn't a Dell or a Razor. Probably gets warm and barely audible. My 2014 MBP has a 47 watt versus a 45 watt in the new i9 MBP, mine barely gets warm, and the fans don't come on often even when graphics card is engaged. You know that has been the whole emphasis of intel development over the last 5 years or so, faster, cooler performance?

This emphasis? https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/17/core-i9-chip-macbook-pro-throttling/

 

[Evangeline]

It's tragic.

Go to 1:55. The i9 Macbook Pro 2018 is even slower than the i7 2017 model due to throttling. Crazy.

 

[0924487]

How is this not interesting? For a long time, a workload has had to use multiprocessing effectively, and it's rare that anything able to take advantage of 4 cores won't be able to take advantage of 6. Most common case I can think of is you have exactly 4 single-threaded programs each taking 100% CPU.
[doublepost=1531800738][/doublepost]
When Apple puts a good graphics chip in, or eGPUs make it unnecessary. eGPUs aren't ready yet. Too many gotchas for average users who need graphics power, too many limitations even for enthusiasts. And Apple's married themselves to AMD while also abandoning OpenCL/GL in favor of Metal. Plenty of people who find Apple's hardware not viable as a result. I'm just glad I'm not one of them.

People will also quit complaining if they give up and switch to Windows. But for a while everyone had hope that somehow things would work out, and there's still some hope.

I said per core wise, it's not that interesting because the improvement on single core performance is not that drastic and well within our expectation. What they excelled this year and in recent years is thermal reduction and power efficiency, which allowed multicore to run at a higher clock speed and overclock longer before thermal throttle.

 

[AgentAnonymous]

Compared to gaming machines, and some other business/pro machines and in the aggregate, yes they do. It is indeed a fact. Saying they can’t render advanced graphics isn’t. I’m pretty sure people have been doing graphical work of all sorts of natures on Macs this year, last year, the year before that, and so on.

Doesn't change that your money is better off spent elsewhere if you work with graphics.

They’ve always used upper mid-range graphics chips. For more than a decade now in fact, so this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Anyone waiting around for Apple to drop in a GeForce 1080 clearly can’t put 2 and 2 together. Though with eGPU support now, it matters less now than it ever has.

No they haven't. The options in Apple's Macbook "Pro" are slow even by standards from 5 years ago.

 

[vipergts2207]

Doesn't change that your money is better off spent elsewhere if you work with graphics.

No they haven't. The options in Apple's Macbook "Pro" are slow even by standards from 5 years ago.

Really? So what was the last high-end chip Apple dropped in an MBP, do tell.

 

[buckwheet]

Hmmm, that's awful that you're experiencing that. I have a space grey one too.

I wonder if the finish had problems in some batches or if other environmental conditions can cause it to deteriorate. Are people reporting the same issues with the finish with the 2017's? Space grey on a MBP body were a new thing when the 2016's came out.

When I said I don't baby my tools, I hope I didn't give the impression that I treat it like a table saw. I actually do treat my stuff nicely. I'm just not super careful and won't go out of my way to make sure nothing harmful ever touches it.

Don't worry, I don't think you ever suggested you were particularly hard on your MBP. I'm just amazed at how poorly my machine has aged, and yes, I'd agree that there's something wrong with the finish on this one—I never expected such a rapid deterioration. What's really awful is that this will slaughter the resale value, which will make it even harder for me to upgrade. Painful. I'll probably go talk to them about it, but I'm sure they'll just shrug and tell me I've done something wrong.

 

[aknabi]

Apple’s customers want thin and light, it’s not that Apple is forcing these machines on customers who would rather have thicker and heavier.

Apple balances CPU and GPU with the machine’s weight and run time. They have a solution that works for 80-90% of their potential customer base, it’s not going to satisfy everyone.

If you’re in the group that needs highest CPU performance with no throttling, regardless of impact on case size and fan noise, MBP is not for you. If you need higher GPU performance than a 35W budget can provide, or need nVIDIA, MBP is not for you. If you need longer lasting battery, regardless of it’s effect on weight and size, MBP is not for you. If you need a bunch of single-purpose ports instead of USB-C only, MBP is not for you. Likewise 4K screen, a fuller-travel keyboard, 64GB RAM, etc.

So to summarize, if you're a traditional Apple power user (e.g. heavy developer, designer, creative) then the platform isn't for you... but if you're a new Apple power user (artesian cafe trustafarian posing as a creative, Kardashian wannabe or fashionista) then the current Apple offerings and road map were designed just for you.

 

[PickUrPoison]

So to summarize, if you're a traditional Apple power user (e.g. heavy developer, designer, creative) then the platform isn't for you... but if you're a new Apple power user (artesian cafe trustafarian posing as a creative, Kardashian wannabe or fashionista) then the current Apple offerings and road map were designed just for you.

Apple sells a thin, light, rather quiet, relatively high performance laptop with good battery life.

MBP has never been a workstation class laptop. But millions of professionals—yes, heavy developers, designers and creatives—find that it meets their needs, however upsetting that may be to you.

But as you imply, it is expensive. Certainly you can find cheaper laptops and that’s great that users have a choice. But they won’t be able to run the OS that many professionals prefer.

 

[DanielEAndersson]

There is really no point in buying mac these days, as competition has cathed up and surpassed it. Mac did serve a big role in getting computer quality up, but lets be honest, pro users today are on Windows machines, were there are more value for money. You need an mac to publish iOS apps, but that's it.