Are you sure you didn't damage something when you took it apart to apply paste?
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.
My new base 2.2 blows away my i9!
- Thread starter drvelocity
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't believe so; I get steady clocks with Cinebench back to back to back runs (3.1 Ghz settling down to 2.9 Ghz).
This is strange. I did mine and it took 21 seconds as I posted on the other thread.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2018-macbook-pro-unreal-engine-light-bake-test.2129380/
Or maybe you ran a slightly more complex test different to mine?
[doublepost=1532546884][/doublepost]
Does your frequency graph look similar to mine? This was run on my i9.
[doublepost=1532547209][/doublepost]
Your signature says you have one?
View attachment 772743
[doublepost=1532547209][/doublepost]
Your signature says you have one?[/QUOTE]
Arriving next week.
[doublepost=1532547209][/doublepost]
Your signature says you have one?[/QUOTE]
Arriving next week.
Arriving next week.[/QUOTE]
Oh! Don't you just love the feeling of waiting for a package?! Hope it comes sooner!
Presumably, the i9 are binned cards that operate within a higher efficiency threshold
Ahhh yes...I probably left them in preview or something. lol. Sorry first time using it and am kinda sleepy. I’ll try again tomorrow.
My 2.6 just got 1049 on cinebench with battery at 14%. Idk if this benchmark is very consistent. Post patch the gpu is getting less than 90fps on cinebench when before i was getting 120.
“It remains to be seen what these cattle have in their belly.”
15” i7 2.6ghz vs 15” i9:
https://translate.googleusercontent...700208&usg=ALkJrhj_ZniTBw4JPV1BcVE_9Cdx9_Bm7A
TL;DR: “One of our tests was to mine cryptocurrency (by soliciting the 12 cores) while rolling in the background Valley Benchmark, which draws all the juice from the graphics card.”
In the above test, both machines throttled down eventually to a steady 1.7ghz. Which tells me all 3 variants will behave similarly under extreme CPU+GPU load.
In other more realistic tests, both models only really differed on single core tasks like compiling in XCode, which also makes sense. Even then, the differences didn’t seem that big IMO.
Given my workload, where I’m often playing scenes in Unity3D, and taxing the GPU, I’m thinking I won’t see much benefit with the i9 vs i7 2.6ghz. My i7 2.6ghz machine arrives 2nd week of August as per latest estimate from Adorama/Apple.
15” i7 2.6ghz vs 15” i9:
https://translate.googleusercontent...700208&usg=ALkJrhj_ZniTBw4JPV1BcVE_9Cdx9_Bm7A
TL;DR: “One of our tests was to mine cryptocurrency (by soliciting the 12 cores) while rolling in the background Valley Benchmark, which draws all the juice from the graphics card.”
In the above test, both machines throttled down eventually to a steady 1.7ghz. Which tells me all 3 variants will behave similarly under extreme CPU+GPU load.
In other more realistic tests, both models only really differed on single core tasks like compiling in XCode, which also makes sense. Even then, the differences didn’t seem that big IMO.
Given my workload, where I’m often playing scenes in Unity3D, and taxing the GPU, I’m thinking I won’t see much benefit with the i9 vs i7 2.6ghz. My i7 2.6ghz machine arrives 2nd week of August as per latest estimate from Adorama/Apple.
Last edited:
I’m an absolute noob when it comes to all this technical stuff.
I have a 2012 MBP and I work in music and when I work on heavy projects with many tracks and plugins my CPU is maxed out all the time with fans running on high speed the whole time for hours.
Am I correct that the 2.2 or 2.6 would both be good for me and I won’t see any real benefit in the i9?
Just trying to make sense of it all.
I have a 2012 MBP and I work in music and when I work on heavy projects with many tracks and plugins my CPU is maxed out all the time with fans running on high speed the whole time for hours.
Am I correct that the 2.2 or 2.6 would both be good for me and I won’t see any real benefit in the i9?
Just trying to make sense of it all.
It's interesting how low this review's Cinebench scores are on both machines.
Haha I'm dead, I think ill be sticking with my 2015 pro for a while! I just redid the thermal paste with Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut and it runs great.
16GB in both, my i9 had the 560X and this one just the 555X.
What made you decide to redo the thermal paste? What I'm getting at is, how often should this realistically be looked at/replaced?
I purchased it second hand and I wasn't sure it the paste was still good. I was right as the paste was dried and cracked. Thermal paste is usually good for a couple years. Nothing bad happens, it's just the thermal conductivity between the CPU and the heatsink is degraded.
I went one big round..
Got the i9...enjoyed the performance but was unsettled cos I had to use 3rd party apps to tame it.
Returned it and ordered and i7 and then Apple released the patch ...
So then I feel comfortable and owning an i9, return the i7 and now here we are again.
For network flow of Adobe InDesign, lightroom, FCP X and some work in parallels the i9 is definitely faster than the i7.
What I'm trying to say is, benchmarks give a good idea of performance but it's not the one all be all.
And a cherry on top of the cake is I sold the beats headphones and covered the cost of the upgrade. Heh heh.
Cheers guys! Let's enjoy the machines and the fact that Apple fixed a mistake that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Got the i9...enjoyed the performance but was unsettled cos I had to use 3rd party apps to tame it.
Returned it and ordered and i7 and then Apple released the patch ...
So then I feel comfortable and owning an i9, return the i7 and now here we are again.
For network flow of Adobe InDesign, lightroom, FCP X and some work in parallels the i9 is definitely faster than the i7.
What I'm trying to say is, benchmarks give a good idea of performance but it's not the one all be all.
And a cherry on top of the cake is I sold the beats headphones and covered the cost of the upgrade. Heh heh.
Cheers guys! Let's enjoy the machines and the fact that Apple fixed a mistake that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Last edited:
Also, you really don't know when it's dried out until you look at it and then it's too late, you would have to replace it then. A good clue is worse than normal temperatures.
The usual recommendation is that thermal paste should be reapplied every 3 years. The container of paste itself typically has a shelf life of 2 years.
