No, not at all, especially given the benchmarks. I was photo editing with a 2012 machine, a base model 2018 is going to be more then enough imo
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.
Max Yuryev tests the MBP 15" CPUs: 2.2 vs 2.6 vs 2.9
- Thread starter sennomulo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hey, thanks for your comment. However, I do photo professional poto editing, every raw file averages 60 MB. I do color correction in capture one and then I do batch processing in photoshop where I apply filters to hundreds of photos. I think I would still benefit from an i9 while doing these tasks and the burst will be quite useful when only opening single files in photoshop...
In theory you should, but are the benchmarks and reviews supporting that? I've seen a number of reviews, videos and discussions that indicate that the base model MBP is faster then the mid range and high range. It may not be for all tasks, but since I'm not in the market for an i9, I can't say how good/bad/indifferent the i9 is
Clearly your task list is much more involved then mine, as I'm a hobbyist shooting on M43 camera.
I spent hours yesterday in PhotoShop and my 15" SG 2.6/16/512 had no problems at all. My files are large like yours and even batch processing of 23 images did not take very long at all. Very happy.
I want to comment because I've seen this reasoning before and I just want to share my experience actually having the i9 and testing it a lot this last week. My i9 only bursts up to 4.4Ghz, even when limited to a smaller core number, and with all cores available it will only boost for a couple of seconds before coming down to 3.1-3.3Ghz.
In the current Macbook Pro line, and most (/all) other thin form factor laptops for that matter, the i9 will not reach the 4.8Ghz theoretical boost speed limit. Now my i9 might just be a bad one (which I don't it is looking at my Cinebench scores) and there may be someone out there reaching higher boosts. However, just don't buy the i9 expecting the full boost potential, it won't reach it.
I'm currently using a 2012 (non retina) maxed out MBP with 16GB RAM and 2 SSDs ... I think I will definitely see an improvement over my current laptop but is it the best way to spend the money today? In other words, would the base 2.2 perform as good as the i9 for my usage?
The other important consideration I make is around the long term performance of the MBP. Besides resale value in few years time, I think the i9 can be exploited more and for longer than a 2.2 i7 MBP. I believe that if in the future I buy a new camera that produces larger files, I can still use the i9 without major problems and I am not sure that with a 2.2 i7 would be the same.
...just food for thoughts...
[doublepost=1533125810][/doublepost]
Very good points. Based on these findings, would you still buy an I7 instead? Or would you still choose the I9?
Im just a jack wagon, I have kept my i9 and drank the Kool-aid hoping Mojave brings more optimization.
I have been testing the 2.6ghz model against the Skylake and the Kabylake in batching images with Photoshop actions and Automater scripts. The improvement is fantastic of course and these tests were more representative of what a Coffeelake can do in a thin and light form factor machine.
I propose we stop letting impractical benchmark tests take control of his discussion or be used for YouTube clickbait. Let’s post real world batch actions that anyone can try on their machines. I’ll post some actions tonight.
I would find it surprising if you could find a difference between a 2.2 i7 and an i9 to be honest (because with turbo boost, the difference is just too miniscule). As for resale, it can be argued that people looking to buy used products are far more price sensitive and will probably not be in a position to pay over the odds because you have an i9 (things like storage upgrades may hold up value better).
Lastly, one could factor in longevity - Due to the i9 being a hotter chip, it could in some ways on average decrease the lifespan of a MacBook.
Overall, there just isn't enough going for the i9 to justify picking it in my opinion - I wouldn't pick it even if I had a super demanding workflow - because I would probably still not notice enough difference. Would probably hop onto a proper work station/desktop at that stage. In a nut shell, the MacBook chassis just isn't designed to give the performance increase an i9 is supposed to.
Here’s the thing. If you have to run batch action to resize or convert 100+ images a day then short burst turbo boost on 1-2 cores at high clock speed is better than 6 cores at a lower clock speed, for obvious reasons.
So photo editing on a thin and light laptop is a practical thing that is made better by Coffeelake. CG and 4K+ video rendering on a thin and light laptop is not really a thing professionals would do, unless they don’t own workstations.
It will - another update is coming.
Apple aren't retarded. They don't want ****ty videos making them look ****.
Generally speaking, resale value of upgrades tends to be a fraction of their initial cost. The only place where I think an upgrade might make a difference in resale in a few years is with storage, since too little storage can make a system undesirable. Not really applicable to CPUs IMHO.
Please explain why you think an i9 would have a sufficiently longer useful life than an i7 to make a substantive difference? Seems to me that if the real world difference you see today is maybe 10%, any difference in the future should be 10% or thereabouts? Same number of cores. Relatively close clock rates for both base and turbo. Same TDP. When someone is looking to buy a five year old laptop it's typically because their needs aren't all that great -- else they'd pony up for a current model. What specific scenario do you think would make the i9 perfectly usable yet leave the i7 unusable in four or five years time?
What I found out over the years is that high end configurations rarely retain the same level of return as stock items. Too often the high end machines just don't have the same demand, and so people are not willing to pay extra on a used machine. YMMV, but that's been my experience.
Agreed. Someone *truly* concerned with CPU performance is not likely to be looking at five year old used systems.
Makes sense - It comes down to price really - someone looking to buy a used machine is likely to be attracted far more to price , rather than a CPU with 300mhz advantage. People who seek performance usually want the latest and greatest.
I'd advice getting the i7 any day. Whether that's the 2.2 or 2.6 is up to you of course, its a $100 difference you have to justify. I will say that I think that if the 2.6Ghz will be fast enough for your tasks on a daily basis, the 2.2 will be as well, just by looking at the small performance differences between them. Hope that makes sense?
Yes, but just to be clear, these machine's are no doubt faster than previous years, by any means these are fast laptop's and a good performance upgrade over the 2017 and earlier models. The benchmarks also show this, as well as the more 'real use case scenario' tests.
My discussion was based purely on the benchmarks showing (almost) no differences between the 3 variations of this years MBP's. This video shows what I already expected from the results that users on this forum posted and my own testing on maximum boost performance on my i9; After the initial boost they basically perform at the same level and the i9's boost is severely limited, both in maximum speed and it's duration, by the Macbook's design thereby limiting it's effect to 1-5% (if there's any at all).
The i9 is just not a good choice to make I can say now in hindsight; for those that will decide or have decided to keep it, I really hope that Apple will perform some of their magic
Last edited:
This is not what I meant. I meant didn't waste my money on the i9 since theres no notable advantage over the base 15" which I currently have which will actually be exchanged for the 13" 16/512.
@leman. You made some good points. I'm also looking to buy a 2018 Macbook Pro 15". I cant decide whether to pick the base i7 2.2/16GB/256 SSD/AMD 555x GPU or go for the mid i7 2.6/16GB/512 SSD/AMD 555x GPU? I'm a photo hobbyist.I wanted to use this for my personal purposes, photo & video editing using PhotoShop/Lighroom CC for photos & FCP & Premier Pro CC for videos. I'm not doing heavy editing work as i dont do paid events. My son might play the fortnite games in this macbook. which one would you suggest me?
The price difference is around £80 in the UK for the upgrade from 2.2 to 2.6 (when factoring the cost of the SSD upgrade). I'd take the mid option if only for the double storage and would probably be tempted to upgrade to 560X just because I like the number 560 more than 555
.The price difference is around £80 in the UK for the upgrade from 2.2 to 2.6 (when factoring the cost of the SSD upgrade). I'd take the mid option if only for the double storage and would probably be tempted to upgrade to 560X just because I like the number 560 more than 555
Here in the US. The price difference is $400 between the base model and the mid model. For this $400 upgrade you get the 2.6 CPU, 512GB SSD & 560x GPU.
I wouldn't advise 256GB drive personally, so when you upgrade the 2.2 to 512GB, I think you'll find the price difference around ~$100?
Currently Best Buy only sells the below two models only. Being thier rewards member i wanted to use some of their rewards/gift cards to make this purchase and hence i had to pick one of them.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/apple-...test-model-space-gray/5998604.p?skuId=5998604
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/apple-...test-model-space-gray/5998605.p?skuId=5998605
Your decision is really then 256GB vs 512GB rather than CPU imo. I'd pick the latter personally.