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

[Cinetagonist]

Hopefully, kernel_task doesn't spin up CPU usage on these new MBP.

If you have a kernel_task problem then you should clean the internals of your Mac immediately. All kernel_task does is keeps your Mac cold enough to work properly. But if the cooling system can't do that, kernel_task throttles Mac, so it wouldn't burn out.

 

[Kabeyun]

the best-available 2.9GHz six-core Intel Core i9 processor, with Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz

Any reason this processor couldn’t be in a new Mini? I mean, if it’s power-miserly enough to live in a laptop, it could certainly be in a desktop computer.

 

[Ploki]

What’s wrong with it?
Why is it lacking?

its essentially a 3y old chip and basically the same (a bit higher clocked) than in 2017 edition.

I too am a little underwhelmed by the GPU tbh. thinking of going 555X + eGPU instead.

 

[RickInHouston]

Increases are done for in computing. That era has sailed.

 

[Ploki]

Increases are done for in computing. That era has sailed.

what?

 

[mscice]

why they did not upgrade the NON touch bar ... touch bar is the worst thing i hope the new macbook air replacements wont have that garbage.

 

[Count Blah]

Hmm but what will all those “professionals” complain about now that their word processors start up quicker? I’m sure the majority of professionals were really struggling without the 32gb ram and six cores .

Don’t worry, browsing the internet and writing a word doc, still works just fine. At least you have been satisfied, all these years. In fact, a MacBook, Mackbook Air, or even an iPad, would satisfy those requirements.

Too bad you feel the need to dump on others, to make yourself feel better.
[doublepost=1531680004][/doublepost]

Any reason this processor couldn’t be in a new Mini? I mean, if it’s power-miserly enough to live in a laptop, it could certainly be in a desktop computer.

Because Apple does not want it to compete with more expansive Macs. Customer choice comes a VERY distant second, to Apple’s profits.

 

[sublunar]

why they did not upgrade the NON touch bar ... touch bar is the worst thing i hope the new macbook air replacements wont have that garbage.

Intel haven't announced a successor to the 15w CPU with Iris Graphics - i5-7260U - the 28w i5-8259U CPUs that have made it into the 13" MacBook Pro with touch bar that was released a few days ago have been in the Intel Ark site for months now - launched Q2 2018 with mentions as far back as April based on a brief search.

There's little tidbits going around as to a successor to the 15w i5-8250U (which has UHD620 graphics - on par with MBA) having much better graphics but nothing calling it Iris Graphics or having EDRAM.

There's plenty of time between now and October though, I'd expect updates after the end of the Back to School season as Apple clear out the old 2017 stock to the college kids.

There was a story going around about a lower cost retina MacBook coming out in June. If it were powered by this CPU - which I think could otherwise have gone into an MBA - it could help merge the MBA and non touch bar MacBook Pro into something that instead fits into the Retina MacBook line - a non pro machine that's a bit cheaper.

Coming later this year is apparently Whiskey Lake (15w CPU replacement but not with Iris Graphics)
and Amber Lake (5w CPU replacement)

In effect, the Mac line becomes:

12" Retina Macbook - 5w Intel CPU (fanless)
13" Retina Macbook - Retina display using MBA CPU
13" Macbook Pro (already released)
15" Macbook Pro (already released)

I'd hope that the 12" Retina MacBook gets more USB-C ports at the very least - if not Thunderbolt 3 ports but the 13" Retina MacBook has to come with at least 2 Thunderbolt 3 ports if it's replacing the non touchbar MacBook Pro. It could re-use the existing non touchbar Pro case design if needs be but the right hand side would look very under used.

 

[PJivan]

Indeed.

A gaming laptop from 2017 with a mobile GTX 1070 and 5.9 TFLOPS smokes the most expensive 2018 MBP with a 560X and 2.6 TFLOPS. Heck, even the most powerful iMac with a 580 has 5.5 TFLOPS (and the BlackMagic eGPU).

a 1017 gaming laptop can be sold used for peanuts and for good reason, they are either loud, hot, low autonomy, just compromise good for some but definitely not a viable solution. really if GPU performance is what is needed then just go with an external GPU or a desktop.

 

[kwikdeth]

Hmm but what will all those “professionals” complain about now that their word processors start up quicker? I’m sure the majority of professionals were really struggling without the 32gb ram and six cores .

I can only speak for myself, but, this is the first time in a long while that Apple has delivered the goods in an update. I do wish they had more ports still, but for the performance boost it's a sacrifice I can put up with. They... might actually be listening finally....

 

[pappkristof]

Get the iMac upgrade to this level and I'm getting one this year.

Me too.

 

[Goaliegeek]

Wow, a very small difference between the 2.2GHz and the 2.6GHz procs. The 2.6GHz model may not be worth the extra $100 now... I might need to rethink what model I want..

Hope I don't see a performance drop going from a 2.53GHz dual core Core 2 Duo to a 2.2GHz i7-8750H

 

[BigJohno]

Bench marking is one thing but sustained performance is another. Would love to see how their cooling solution copes with 100% cpu load for extended periods of time.

 

[kwikdeth]

Any reason this processor couldn’t be in a new Mini? I mean, if it’s power-miserly enough to live in a laptop, it could certainly be in a desktop computer.

They might... But that's a big might. But people still pay pretty good money for those 2012 quad-cores. I'd say 35% chance of it happening.

 

[DNichter]

Nice upgrades. Still seems very expensive to me, but I personally have no use for such machines. It’s great to see those on the Mac side get their upgrade. I’ll stick with iOS for now, but I’m sure I’ll be tempted back at some point.

 

[R3k]

Let’s see thermal performance under sustained load before we go nuts.

That’s what most people seem to forget. Specs are great on paper for MacBooks and I really love the machine, but if you have the system under load for long periods of time it’s going to slow down. At this point it is nowhere near being a replacement for my desktop system. One day.

 

[MTW]

Too bad the machine is in no way usable thanks to the keyboard and touch bar. Sigh.

 

[IndigoDesign]

That seems highly unlikely at least for the current gen of CPUs. Non-touchbar Macbook pro uses 15 watt CPU with Iris graphics which 8th gen CPU line-up doesn't have any equivalent of.

Not true. Running the 8250 i5 in my Lenovo - would be a perfect fit for the MBP - it’s the same cpu. No magic sauce involved. They won’t update it so they can enforce the stupid TB!

 

[MauiPa]

Hmm but what will all those “professionals” complain about now that their word processors start up quicker? I’m sure the majority of professionals were really struggling without the 32gb ram and six cores .

lol, or 32 GB to have windows in chrome open. hahaha, someone actually said that

 

[R3k]

Too bad the machine is in no way usable thanks to the keyboard and touch bar. Sigh.

You get used to it.

 

[MauiPa]

Your comment made me smile.

If you're using Microsoft Office, even the latest MacBook Pro won't make it launch quickly.

or improve its UI

 

[aaronhead14]

But it still has the same dumb design that excludes important ports such as the SD card slot and HDMI, thus forcing users to carry annoying adapters with them everywhere. It defeats the purpose of having a thin, portable all-in-one machine if you have to carry a bunch of other crap with you!

 

[vipergts2207]

You forget how much more expensive the 2016 MacBook Pro was made compared to the models from 2015 and before. Main justification for it was the Touch Bar, which a lot of people don't feel is worth the extra money.

With inflation the MBP is actually slightly cheaper than it should be. In 2007 a baseline MBP was $2000 which is $2430 in today’s dollars. The real problem is the price of SSD storage. To get decent storage nowadays you have to spend several hundred more dollars which makes these new MBPs seem way more expensive than they were years ago. In 2007 you got 160 GB and could upgrade to 250 GB. Currently, baseline is 256 GB, which is only 56% larger than baseline was over a decade ago. Of course, HDDs were a very mature technology even back then. While SSDs aren’t new, they aren’t nearly as mature as HDDs were in 2007. Considering that the switch from HDD to SSD has probably been the biggest performance enhancement to these computers in a long time, to me the cost is justified. SSDs will hopefully continue to drop in cost over time.

 

[tokajilover]

2018 MacBook Pro models feature the biggest yearly CPU performance gains since 2011, according to Geekbench founder John Poole.
A new 15-inch MacBook Pro with the best-available 2.9GHz six-core Intel Core i9 processor, with Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz, has a multi-core score of 22,439

7 years and 7500$ later it would be finelly twice as fast as my 2011 mbp 17'' with 11'500 score

 

[PJivan]

7 years and 7500$ later it would be finelly twice as fast as my 2011 mbp 17'' with 11'500 score

Why do you need 4tb of SSD to have that score?7 years later you still don't know what a drive does.