Max Yuryev tests the MBP 15" CPUs: 2.2 vs 2.6 vs 2.9

[deeddawg]

If you watch Max Yuryev's video you can use the difference between the 2.2 (with the 555X) and the 2.6/2.9 (with the 560X) as what you get for the $100.

Thanks -- I usually don't watch videos as I (generally) find it annoying how slowly they present actual information vs a written article I can easily skim through and then focus on the relevant info.

Now that I've gone through the video I see there's a definite difference for video work. Which I don't do any of... So no benefit to what I do.

 

[Adeel_]

Why 560x vs 555x?

Not challenging, genuinely curious what benefits the 560x provide that are worth the $100 extra?

My opinion is based on this video in French, the gain seems quite important between a 550x vs 560x. While regarding the CPU the difference between a 2.2 vs 2.6 is not that huge

You don't really need to understand french, you can see the benchmarks.

 

[leman]

I shouldn't have said 20% sure, but I said 10 to 20%. Let's leave out the 20%, I still don't think a expecting 10% performance difference is unreasonable from a machine that is advertised as going from 2.6 to 2.9 Base speed and 4.3 to 4.8 Turbo boost and requires additional payment of $300 for that difference.

You are perfectly right, and this is exactly why I find Intel's marketing on these SKUs questionable. Looking at the CPUs, one would expect the more expensive models to perform better at the same energy consumption. However, they are not — their performance per watt is more or less the same. This makes things very confusing to the customer.

If you then end up getting zero to 5% difference, how could you advise people the i9 instead of the i7 2.6?

Oh, I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to get the i9, for the reasons you stated. My advice is to go for the mid-range model if you do demanding work. I know why I bought the i9 and I believe that my decision was correct. Unfortunately, I don't have any other model here, would be interesting to run some quick tests on work I do to see whether there are differences.

Even then you're paying 11% more for the total machine, so whether you value those 5% for an 11% price increase is a good question to ask yourself.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, not many customers have necessary technical knowledge or patience to understand what they buying. And the market is as confusing as ever. For instance, Intel is about to release its first gen 9 CPUs. Which is a refreshed Coffee Lake with some minor improvements (gen 8). Which in turn is a Kaby Lake with some minor improvements (gen 7), which in turn is Skylake... Same with GPUs — Nvidia and AMD both just keep selling 2 year old chips, just releasing them under new names over and over again. Especially Nvidia recently made a great success selling underclocked year-old GPUs with some rather ingenious marketing.

 

[RobbieTT]

For once the performance upgrade in the 2018 MBPs has been remarkable and one of the biggest gains I can ever recall. If the i9 had been released before the 8th gen i5s and i7s we would be celebrating its performance.

If anything the latest i5 and i7 2018 MBPs are 'too good' - Apple has these CPUs unlocked and performing well above their specifications. This has narrowed the gap to the i9 to the point that it looks like a niche product with a price to match.

If there was a thread where I could thank Apple for wringing the neck out of the new i5s and i7s, together with T2 and SSD performance gains, I would sign-up with a big grin. Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase a build-to-order specc'd-out i9. For those of us playing in the lower-spec 2018 MBPs pool the Apple life looks pretty good.

 

[CreeptoLoser]

The reason why MBP going forward will need an i9 model is because it will be the only CPU supporting hyperthreading. It is being dropped from the i7 line.

So now you understand why the option has been introduced.

 

[Thysanoptera]

The reason why MBP going forward will need an i9 model is because it will be the only CPU supporting hyperthreading. It is being dropped from the i7 line.

So now you understand why the option has been introduced.

So you’re saying Intel added HT to 8th gen mobile i5s just to remove it from i7s? Interesting, wicked Intel. I always thought Intel marketing people put next SKU markings on the same chip just higher clocked to get more money. Like all the i7 from MBA, Mac mini’s etc.

 

[CreeptoLoser]

So you’re saying Intel added HT to 8th gen mobile i5s just to remove it from i7s? Interesting, wicked Intel. I always thought Intel marketing people put next SKU markings on the same chip just higher clocked to get more money. Like all the i7 from MBA, Mac mini’s etc.

They’re upping core counts all the time so having HT on lower end CPUs will just consume too much power. People will complain about battery life. Physical cores is better than virtual cores anyway.

 

[dannyar]

So you’re saying Intel added HT to 8th gen mobile i5s just to remove it from i7s? Interesting, wicked Intel. I always thought Intel marketing people put next SKU markings on the same chip just higher clocked to get more money. Like all the i7 from MBA, Mac mini’s etc.

He's only speculating. This hasn't been reported anywhere

 

[CreeptoLoser]

He's only speculating. This hasn't been reported anywhere

It has been reported on most tech sites that have leaked 9th gen Coffeelake refresh that the i7 and i5 are dropping HT.

https://www.arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/leaked-benchmarks-show-intel-is-dropping-hyperthreading-from-i7-chips/?amp=1

 

[Macshroomer]

Its not A youtube wannabe, its MANY youtube wannabes as you call them showing real world numbers and benchmarks proving this. I understand you and many others bit the bullet and bought the i9 blindly without seeing if it would actually make difference, but that doesn't mean its worth it to others. Even with those numbers your showing, I still wouldnt spend that money for a 2 minute improvement. As I mentioned earlier, no one can tell me those 2 minutes, even 10 extra minutes in a whole workday is worth it.

Ever hear of deadlines and how they can interrupt generating more content for a client?? Take that 100 files being done 40% faster and then times it by ten on a big job in a day, that adds up fast over a year. And finally, when I am billing out $2,000-$4,000 a day on a job, minutes add up to dollars quickly.

Maybe you would not spend the money for that kind of improvement because you are not likely making the kind of money in that it would makes sense?

 

[GerritB]

Ever hear of deadlines and how they can interrupt generating more content for a client?? Take that 100 files being done 40% faster and then times it by ten on a big job in a day, that adds up fast over a year. And finally, when I am billing out $2,000-$4,000 a day on a job, minutes add up to dollars quickly.

Maybe you would not spend the money for that kind of improvement because you are not likely making the kind of money in that it would makes sense?

It's getting old, but just to be clear again, for now we're talking about single digit percentage points judging by the benchmarks/tests. If you could give me something that provides me 40% improvement for 11% higher costs, you'd already have my money.

I'm really not sure where you guys get these percentages from..

 

[CreeptoLoser]

It's getting old, but just to be clear again, for now we're talking about single digit percentage points judging by the benchmarks/tests. If you could give me something that provides me 40% improvement for 11% higher costs, you'd already have my money.

I'm really not sure where you guys get these percentages from..

I’m not really sure why a few of you guys ignore evidence. I have up to 30% improvement on my work, the machine is cheaper than the one I bought in 2016, and time I save pays for the machine in a month. Actually I have had two clients this week instead of one because of the upgrade.

Tomorrow’s test results, files and actions that I will post will end all this denialism and trolling.

 

[Thysanoptera]

The 40% is probably the difference between his iMac pro 10core and any MacBook Pro of current gen.

 

[dannyar]

Ever hear of deadlines and how they can interrupt generating more content for a client?? Take that 100 files being done 40% faster and then times it by ten on a big job in a day, that adds up fast over a year. And finally, when I am billing out $2,000-$4,000 a day on a job, minutes add up to dollars quickly.

Maybe you would not spend the money for that kind of improvement because you are not likely making the kind of money in that it would makes sense?

WE ARE NOT COMPARING TO 2017 MODELS. There is not a 40% let alone 20% gap between the entry 15" and the i9.

 

[deeddawg]

I’m not really sure why a few of you guys ignore evidence.

Maybe because most people are talking about 2018 i7 vs 2018 i9 differences and you're talking about 2017 vs 2018 models. Two very different things.

I'm not seeing anyone denying there's a substantial increase from 2017 to 2018 models.

Tomorrow’s test results, files and actions that I will post will end all this denialism and trolling.

Those will be 2018 i7 vs 2018 i9 model tests, right?

Since that is the primary focus of this thread, right?

Posting 2017 vs 2018 tests don't really address the discussion here.

 

[dannyar]

I’m not really sure why a few of you guys ignore evidence. I have up to 30% improvement on my work, the machine is cheaper than the one I bought in 2016, and time I save pays for the machine in a month. Actually I have had two clients this week instead of one because of the upgrade.

Tomorrow’s test results, files and actions that I will post will end all this denialism and trolling.

You are the one ignoring the original topic in which we are comparing gains amongst the new models and not based on what you were using in the past.

 

[GerritB]

I’m not really sure why a few of you guys ignore evidence. I have up to 30% improvement on my work, the machine is cheaper than the one I bought in 2016, and time I save pays for the machine in a month. Actually I have had two clients this week instead of one because of the upgrade.

Tomorrow’s test results, files and actions that I will post will end all this denialism and trolling.

🙂 Again, this thread, the one you are in, if you look at the title and the discussion that everyone is having except you and Macshroomer, is specifically about a comparison between this years' three processors.

Nobody here is arguing on whether they should buy the current machine based on comparison to last years machine. Nobody is saying they are slow. Nobody is saying that any of these three don't bring a performance gain compared to last years' models. They are talking about which version of these three to buy.

But my guess is that you know that perfectly fine but still want to push a certain narrative for some reason. It's just a little weird.

 

[CreeptoLoser]

Maybe because some people are talking about 2018 i7 vs 2018 i9 differences and other folks are talking about 2016/17 vs 2018 differences.

Two very different things. I'm not seeing anyone denying there's a substantial increase from 2017 to 2018 models.


Those will be 2018 i7 vs 2018 i9 model tests, right? Since that is the primary focus of this thread, right? Posting 2017 vs 2018 tests don't really address the questions here.

Yes true.

But as mentioned above, the i9 option is likely being introduced because Intel is allegedly removing HT from the i7.

So the i9 will become the model people buy if they don’t care for battery life and want cores and HT. The i7 and i5 without HT option will be the mid and lower end options for people who want more battery life.

If that is happening it makes sense for Apple to prepare the tiers in advance.

 

[Macshroomer]

WE ARE NOT COMPARING TO 2017 MODELS. There is not a 40% let alone 20% gap between the entry 15" and the i9.

You are right, WE are not comparing anything. What *you* seem to be doing is having a hard time dealing with the fact that some of us are well justified in maxing out our hardware from a business standpoint. You are not going to win this no matter what you do so how about moving along to another point of contention?

 

[CreeptoLoser]

You are the one ignoring the original topic in which we are comparing gains amongst the new models and not based on what you were using in the past.

The purpose of the tests and actions I will post will be for users to check real world performance gains and comparisons on all models instead of listening to youtubers who did little in their life except YouTubing.

 

[dannyar]

You are right, WE are not comparing anything. What *you* seem to be doing is having a hard time dealing with the fact that some of us are well justified in maxing out our hardware from a business standpoint. You are not going to win this no matter what you do so how about moving along to another point of contention?

Wrong. No one cares what improvements you are seeing compared to your 2015-2017 models. Thats now what this thread was about. Show me numbers that prove its worth 17% more money for less than 10% more performance amongst THE 2018 MODELS ONLY.

 

[GerritB]

@Macschroomer and @CreeptoLoser I'm just going to let you guys do you. I don't want to sidetrack this topic further talking about irrelevant things. You are either having a lot of fun at trolling or its some other agenda you want to push, I don't know but whatever.

I hope you guys can let this topic continue discussing what's a normal and very relevant question for a lot of potential buyers: Which version of this years Macbooks to buy; Which one gives me the best performance and which one gives me the best value?

 

[M.Rizk]

Yes true.

But as mentioned above, the i9 option is likely being introduced because Intel is allegedly removing HT from the i7.

So the i9 will become the model people buy if they don’t care for battery life and want cores and HT. The i7 and i5 without HT option will be the mid and lower end options for people who want more battery life.

If that is happening it makes sense for Apple to prepare the tiers in advance.

What you are talking about is something that is still a rumor, and even if true, will happen in future CPUs. NOT NOW. Currently all i7s and i9s inside the new 2018 MBP have HT. We do not care what future CPUs will have because that is not what we are discussing here.

Again, this topic is about discussing the CPUs inside the 2018 15" MBPs. It is not about Intel's future. Not about the 2017 model. Not about Windows laptops. Not about the future of the i9/i7 chips. Users here simply want to know whether it's worth paying $400 for the i9, and some are also wondering if its worth paying $100(or $80) for the 2.6 i7.

 

[deeddawg]

Show me numbers that prove its worth 17% more money for less than 10% more performance amongst THE 2018 MODELS ONLY.

I imagine if I thought about it a bit I could construct a scenario in which the added performance directly affects quantity of work performed in a day to a substantive degree.

The real question though would be how common such scenarios are in the real world. Particularly since it appears that amount of performance difference is very specific to limited activities and the performance difference is substantially less for most other activities.

Which puts us back to where we started -- except for some small subset of users with very specialized workflows, most folks won't see any real benefit to the 2018 i9 vs the 2018 i7.

 

[Thysanoptera]

You are right, WE are not comparing anything. What *you* seem to be doing is having a hard time dealing with the fact that some of us are well justified in maxing out our hardware from a business standpoint. You are not going to win this no matter what you do so how about moving along to another point of contention?

The point is that with this current gen, depending on task and environmental conditions you may and will get sometimes worse results than base 2.2. And at least for me, the whole issue is not with you or others, but with Apple for reusing last year chassis and charging a lot of money for an upgrade that has no chance to show its full potential.