How long after buying Mac are Geekbench results accurate?

[Corncab44]

I'm currently comparing two 16 inch laptops I've purchased -- I switched from an i9 2.3 5500m to an i9 2.4 5300m since I wanted the better binning. I also had an i9 2.4 that I had to return because the screen was bad. The processor on that i9 2.4 was a dream though, it performed super well, didn't produce as much heat or use as much wattage at the same frequencies, and was a good option for under powering (which I plan to do in light of the dGPU external monitor fiasco).

My problem is this new i9 2.4 I have (refurbished, nothing physically wrong I can see and the screen is the brightest one I've had), does to seem to be performing as well. It's been about 48 hours and I'm getting terrible Geekbench scores, and generally the processor is not running above 4ghz, which the other i9 2.4 did. Now, I know you may not need this speed always, but I want to be sure I have a good processor if all I'm doing is upgrading from a 2.3 ghz.

I know it's not smart to take benchmarks in the first day or two.... but when is it? I'm particularly concerned because the processor, even if it's busy doing whatever it does when you get a new laptop, is not running at very high speeds. Wondering how long to give it....

 

[0128672]

... does to seem to be performing as well

I’m assuming you mean does not seem to be ...

What version of Geekbench are you running and what are your scores?

 

[Corncab44]

I’m assuming you mean does not seem to be ...

What version of Geekbench are you runing and what are your scores?

Sorry, you're right. That's what I mean.

I'm getting around 1,000 single core and no more than 6,800 multicore. The last i9 2.4 I had got 1100 plus and over 7200. But more than that, I just don't see the processor running as fast as the other one I had. It seems to be... slower. I'll give it another day, but my MacBook odyssey may continue.

I have an i9 2.3 that works as it should (I think) but it really heats up when I have a monitor attached and the 5500m initiated. To try to regulate that somewhat (until apple/amd give a fix for the dGPU), I figured I'd get a less powerful graphics card and a better binned processor. Presumably if I limit power to x wattage using Volta or voltage shift (or turn off turbo boost, though that does not seem like an ideal solution to me), the i9 will give me better performance with similar heat.

EDIT: running GeekBench version 5

 

[0128672]

It will help to know which Geekbench version you’re using, and under what conditions you’re testing (CPU load, cold/no apps running, battery/power, etc.). In Geekbench 5, although the results you’re getting are lower than your other i9/2.4, they’re within -/+100 of the average. If the new i9 is working in all other respects as expected, I guess you have to ask yourself how much time and energy do you want to spend chasing that elusive slightly higher GB score.

 

[Corncab44]

It will help to know which Geekbench version you’re using, and under what conditions you’re testing (CPU load, cold/no apps running, battery/power, etc.). In Geekbench 5, although the results you’re getting are lower than your other i9/2.4, they’re within -/+100 of the average. If the new i9 is working in all other respects as expected, I guess you have to ask yourself how much time and energy do you want to spend chasing that elusive slightly higher GB score.

Just ran a new test, plugged in, with nothing else open.

1100 - 6507 on the i9 2.4
1166 - 6711 on the i9 2.3

The i9 2.3 does ramp up fans quicker and faster than the i9 2.4, which is line with my previous testing. But the i9 2.4 just isn't performing here.... I'll test again in 24 hours I guess.

For me this isn't about peak performance but how well the processor performs at various wattages. The i9 2.4 should be a better processor in most ways, I didn't want to get the 2.3 since it's the same processor but was binned as worse performing. I don't think the i9 2.4 gets hotter, in fact it seems to perform better and cooler (in as much as these 8 core beasts can). For me the goal is to have the best thermal performance with an 8 core.

 

[Supra Mac]

There are multiple factors that can alter your scores. Things like heat soak, fan profiles, starting CPU temp, etc. Best way I found to get max scores with little varience and reduce those factors for a fair comparison is to do the following:

Make sure everything is shut down.
Open Geekbench and Macsfancontrol, have windows open
Sleep machine (lid open) for amount of time to get a cold wake (maybe 30 mins to hour)

Cold Wake (cpu temps in the 30s)
Place fans on full blast and run Geekbench.

 

[Corncab44]

There are multiple factors that can alter your scores. Things like heat soak, fan profiles, starting CPU temp, etc. Best way I found to get max scores with little varience and reduce those factors for a fair comparison is to do the following:

Make sure everything is shut down.
Open Geekbench and Macsfancontrol, have windows open
Sleep machine (lid open) for amount of time to get a cold wake (maybe 30 mins to hour)

Cold Wake (cpu temps in the 30s)
Place fans on full blast and run Geekbench.

That seems like gaming it. On my other 2.4 I got over 7200 routinely without adjusting fan profile and just closing all applications. I think this is just a worse processor. Maybe that's why it was sent back to be refurbished.

 

[Supra Mac]

Well... ya . I see you don't have the machine anymore that you want to compare, missed that.

 

[Corncab44]

Well... ya . I see you don't have the machine anymore that you want to compare, missed that.

In any case this new one is making weird clicking noises while I run Geekbench (like something is getting too hot and expanding), so I'll probably be returning it. Alas. Seemingly every MacBook I buy has something wrong with it.