Do owners of Dell or Surface machines exhibit the level of OCD that Mac owners seem to exhibit on a regular basis? Just asking from a scientific point of view...
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.
Looks like I got another defective M4 Pro? Super...
- Thread starter DeepSix
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OCD is not something you joke around with brands or devices. I have seen how debilitating that can be for those who suffer. It doesn’t matter what device, what brand or what activity. I seriously wished OP was trolling us all. Even smallest of activities, possessions can morph in to or issues.
I understand it is a brand new machine. Try running the benchmark again in a few days and see if you get the missing score points back. Check activity monitor, there are probably a bunch of "new machine" background tasks running on the new machine that go on for a while ... maybe days ... before things settle down a bit. Things like search indexing, photos scanning, iCloud sync, etc.
When Apple charges what they do for these machines, I can appreciate that even a slight "defect" can be cause for concern for some people.
Which model do you have? Maybe thermal throttling?
I got my 14" Macbook Pro M4 Pro 14C/20 GPU 1TB 3 days ago and my first run of Cinebench 2024 gives
- GPU: 9014 - GPU temps peaked at 92C in 30C ambient room temps
- CPU Multi: 1642 - CPU temps peaked at 108C in 30C ambient room temps.
- CPU Single: 174
Bash:
ps -x | wc
359 4428 153269
Last edited:
I have the M4 Pro with 24GB / 512GB. Interesting that yours is quite a bit faster in multicore. Maybe I had too much stuff running in the background at the time. Anyways Im not going to run the benchmark again.
The only way to get more or less reliable results from any benchmark is to run it multiple times and averaging the results. As said many times before in this thread there are multiple factors and variables (background processes, temperatures etc.) that influence these results.
Since you started this thread with mainly complaining about Cinebench results and assuming your computer was defective because of it, I don't understand your reluctancy to verify results by testing your system properly. Maybe this will lead to the conclusion that your system is not defective at all?
Last edited:
How did you get such high scores? Maybe all your cores are good and I likely have a dead core.
It could be due to cooling. My MacBook Pro sits on my existing laptop cooler which sits on a LCD monitor arm tray. That's why I originally asked if your issue is thermal throttling
This is the laptop cooler I use originally for my Windows 10 laptop Lenovo X1 Carbon gen 6 which died https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B00FPR8FLY. It's large enough to cool the ports of devices on either side of a 14 inch laptop as well. Definitely served me well for the past 7+ years
Thermaltake Massive 14 Steel Mesh Panel Dual 140mm Blue LED Fan Adjustable Speed Control 10"-17" Laptop Notebook Cooling Pad
So maybe your issue is CPU thermal throttling + on battery auto performance ?
These are my performance and efficiency core CPU clock frequencies after Cinebench 2024 run
edit: actually maybe it's due to performance modes + thermals
out of box Macbook Pro set to auto for on battery and on AC power adaptor modes. My above run was on AC power adaptor mode with high performance
here's on battery with auto = 1545 and high performance = 1607
on auto CPU performance cores hovered around 3.3-3.35Ghz with efficiency cores around 2.59Ghz and fans pegged at 4900-5330 rpms
on high CPU performance cores hovered around 3.57-3.66Ghz with efficiency cores around 2.59Ghzand fans pegged at 7200-7840 rpms
Last edited:
You do realize there are nearly 30 billion transistors in each chip right? These are consumer level products, they aren’t going to Mars.
The currently best Geekbench score for a M4 Max is Single-Core Score 4123, so not being close to break the 4000 number at least would be a bit disappointing. I think most are just a touch above 4000.
Why are you running Cinebench when you want to do video? Cinebench is a 3D rendering benchmark and has nothing to do with video editing performance.
Laptops are meant to get used; it is going to get scratched, get marks on it. You would be better off getting a shaggymax or similar screen protector cloth instead of dusting the thing off every time you use it.
I don't think mine was throttling. I have it on a laptop riser that has it more than a foot off the desk when used at the desk.
I just wanted to make sure I didn't get defective cores. I have lots of new microfibre cloths that I can use too for the screen. Or I can use a battery powered air blower. The thing is larger than the laptop itself and makes more noise than a house vacuum cleaner but it works.
It's a bit tedious to have to dust the thing every time I use it but it is what it is. I've never had to do such a thing with any other laptop Ive owned in my life. MacBooks are just more high maintenance than the average laptop.
I’m just curious, how did this work on non-Apple laptops? Do they not get dusty because of some sort of anti dust coating or is there a type of self cleaning of the screen from dust through maybe vent fans blowing the dust off.
I haven’t bought a Windows laptop in over five years (I think), and I know they’re always coming out with something new.
Macbook Pro's screen and keyboard are delicate. Dust will scratch the screen if left on there and it will also ruin the keyboard if it gets under the keys.
Did you run the benchmark just once on each machine or are you getting exactly 1395 every time you run the benchmark on your new machine? I wouldn't be surprised if you see a 2.5% variation from run to run on the same machine. Today's machines are highly dynamic between variable clock speeds, variable fan speeds, core/module deactivation, cache and multi-level memory hierarchy effects, etc all interacting with active OS management of the hardware.
I ran some benchmarks on older machines over Thanksgiving for something I am investigating and planning to post the results soon. FYI, some benchmark results varied 30% between runs and I had to put in a fair amount to isolate and control for things.
That's not how things works. You can't receive a working processor with individual defective cores. Either the whole thing works or it doesn't. There are ways to individually disable cores to bin the chips and use units that require certain cores to be disabled, but that requires imbedding special microcode into the processor itself during finalization. It's not a situation where one core (or more) can just not work and have that slip past QC testing. You cannot be in a situation where you've paid for a 14-core model and receive one where only 13 are working.
So the conclusion is people shouldn't casually do benchmark tests and then believe their machine is defective.
I have never ran one and never will, because of your reasons.
People can use benchmarks as tools to understand their system performance and isolate issues. Defective is the last conclusion I would draw from a lower than expected result. Depending on the results and other issues, I might investigate further and only start to consider hardware failure if I couldn't find other explanations for unexpected performance results.
If I just wanted to know if I had the number of cores, RAM, etc that I thought I purchased, I would just look in System Information. Always good to do a basic sanity test when you buy anything new -- whether it is a car, oven, or computer. But if it passes Power On Diagnostics, etc, has all the pieces it was supposed to have, and runs similar to what I expected then I assume it's good.
A few benchmarks on a new machine/hardware can establish a baseline for the future. For example, if your SSD gets 3000 MB/sec when new but now shows 1500 or 2000, would be worth investigating. Might be due to impending hardware failure.
It's been a while since I ran benchmarks on modern hardware and it was an educational experience for me. Debatable whether a good use of my time...
The displays are awful for anything other than static content.
70-80ms response times are downright embarrassing and it reeks of Tim Costcutter Apple doing bean counter pro max counting.
The whole "oh but we need to sacrifice response times for better colour" is hilarious especially given that the people spreading such nonsense know absolutely nothing about colour calibrating monitors.
Pick any cheap "gaming" laptop with a 4k 144hz+ screen and it takes 2 minutes to enable the colour accurate modes using either Nvidia or AMD's control panel. Or, just spend some of the £2000 you've saved by not buying an Apple display on a colour calibration tool and buy any desktop monitor you want.
The funny thing is, the MBA displays at 60hz actually have significantly faster response times, meaning they actually look better in motion than the trash Mini LED screens in the MBP. The only real downside is the higher black levels which negatively affect contrast ratio. 120hz is absolutely worthless with such high response times.