Sidebar Sidebar
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!

mr.anthonyramos said:
I posted something earlier about Cinebench and how I would take their scores with a grain of salt.

Here it says in this test done by PCMAG that the i9 Alienware gets 1036. Does this mean that it will perform worse than you guys getting 1040-1060 cinebench scores? I don't think so.


View attachment 773069
Click to expand...

fate0311 said:
Man literally every single one of your posts around these forums are you reaching at all costs to justify your i9 purchase.
Click to expand...


I agree with fate0311. It's a bit nonsense to say this @mr.anthonyramos
The software was specifically engineered for accurate testing and comparison of real world CPU and GPU performance. R15 is significantly better than previous versions. Also, the Alienware test you are referencing to could be flawed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've tried the new version of Volta but according to the voltage figures shown in Volta, there doesn't seem to be much (any?) difference despite changing the undervolt value in the voltage figures it is showing me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uecker87
maflynn said:
No I disagree because simply I cannot get close to that number w/o undervolting and I never dip close to the non-undervolting number.
Click to expand...

Standing on their own, as you posted them, I'd dismiss a difference of less then 1.5% as pure chance. If you have numbers from multiple runs however, thats a different thing. You could run a simple t-test to confirm your intuition.
 
OSX15 said:
The software was specifically engineered for accurate testing and comparison of real world CPU and GPU performance.
Click to expand...
And yet this is what CineBench had to say about the i9
The response?

Cinebench said its application: “Has not been upgraded to measure the performance in a meaningful way,” adding that, “the development team is aware and will be addressing this in the future.”
Click to expand...
[doublepost=1532700902][/doublepost]
leman said:
You could run a simple t-test to confirm your intuition.
Click to expand...
T-Test?
 
  • Like
Reactions: M.Rizk
maflynn said:
And yet this is what CineBench had to say about the i9
Click to expand...

I get your point, there are always exceptions and no benchmarking software is a 100% valid. It does make sense to me that they need to optimize the software from time to time to make sure they have accurate readings on new CPUs. We will see in the near future what it will change. I wouldn't be surprised - based on your reference to their response - that the other i7s / 8th gen. / 6 core CPUs might also get different scores after a Cinebench update. Even though the 8750h is already out for some time.
 
OSX15 said:
I get your point, there is always exceptions and no benchmarking software is a 100% valid. It does make sense to me that they need to optimize the software from time to time to make sure they have accurate readings on new CPUs. We will see in the near future what it will change. I wouldn't be surprised - based on your reference to their response - that the other i7s / 8th gen. / 6 core CPUs might also get different scores after a Cinebench update. Even though the 8750h is already out for some time.
Click to expand...

You say there are always exemptions and no benchmark test is 100% and yet you talk about accuracy and call my statement as non-sense. Which I why I go back to what I said in the first place, I would always take these tests with a grain of salt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M.Rizk
mr.anthonyramos said:
You say there are always exemptions and no benchmark test is 100% and yet you talk about accuracy and call my statement as non-sense. Which I why I go back to what I said in the first place, I would always take these tests with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

I said: It's a bit nonsense to say this. I was referring to you, basing your logic on one Alienware score and drawing conclusions from that. I admit, I was not aware of the response of Maxon with regards to their software not being able to accurately calculate scores for the I9s. I do however believe in their algorithms and believe, as long as CPUs are properly supported the tool is pretty accurate. I've used it so many times over the years. I also know many IT professionals who use it ranging from Apple technicians to Dell technicians. So, based on the information from Maxon, you are absolutely right when you are talking about the i9 scores.
 
maflynn said:
No I disagree because simply I cannot get close to that number w/o undervolting and I never dip close to the non-undervolting number. That is I have hard evidence that I'm undervolting. You may not choose to believe that, but I think the numbers stand on its own.

I agree that the undervolting numbers are not far off to the non, I thought I'd see a bigger gap, nonetheless I cannot reproduce that higher number UNLESS I undervolt.
Click to expand...


"Only compatible with Haswell and Broadwell processors (Macbooks from 2013 - 2015). This functionality has been prevented on later generations."

From Volta's website. 2016 MBP and newer can't be undervolted.
The app shows -xxx mv but it is actually not having that effect on the computer, but in your head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uecker87
mr.anthonyramos said:
I have the both the 2018 2.2 and the i9. I have nothing to be insecure about. We all just need to be more informed than creating an uproar and basing all our computers on a single benchmark application and then you end up with people getting disappointment, angry and all these other emotions which to be honest, these numbers should never be the basis of absolution. :)
[doublepost=1532699948][/doublepost]

Thank you. As mentioned, I believe these benchmarks are good but it doesn't mean an absolute cause to say THIS is the performance of a machine which is exactly what some people are doing here. Not sure if you have all seen this but this shares some insight on performance. There are some instances that the 2.6 does perform better or equally to the i9.

https://translate.googleusercontent...700208&usg=ALkJrhj_ZniTBw4JPV1BcVE_9Cdx9_Bm7A
Click to expand...
Barefeats.com looks like they'll be coming out with a more robust set of comparisons. Lets wait and see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Petetastic, M.Rizk and mr.anthonyramos
OSX15 said:
I said: It's a bit nonsense to say this. I was referring to you, basing your logic on one Alienware score and drawing conclusions from that. I admit, I was not aware of the response of Maxon with regards to their software not being able to accurately calculate scores for the I9s. I do however believe in their algorithms and believe, as long as CPUs are properly supported the tool is pretty accurate. I've used it so many times over the years. I also know many IT professionals who use it ranging from Apple technicians to Dell technicians. So, based on the information from Maxon, you are absolutely right when you are talking about the i9 scores.
Click to expand...

The point of me mentioning that was exactly to prove that we can’t simply rely solely on benchmark applications. No one is saying they don’t work or they are worthless, which is why I said take these results with a grain of salt. I too use them, but I will never draw conclusions based on single scores and because of my experience as well, I would rather test out my workflow and compare from there and see if it makes a difference between machines.
[doublepost=1532704371][/doublepost]
RumorConsumer said:
Barefeats.com looks like they'll be coming out with a more robust set of comparisons. Lets wait and see.
Click to expand...

Cool! Thanks for letting us know.
 
leman said:
If you have numbers from multiple runs (the more the better), just give them to me and I can run some trivial stats :)
Click to expand...
I don't, and its really not a huge deal, since I'm not running it undervolted. I've said it a few times, I'm more concerned about heat, so I have it throttled using the wattage slider of Volta. I was curious with Volta update, would I notice a difference in the benchmarks, and I did. Take the numbers at face value, I've since moved on :)
 
mr.anthonyramos said:
The point of me mentioning that was exactly to prove that we can’t simply rely solely on benchmark applications. No one is saying they don’t work or they are worthless, which is why I said take these results with a grain of salt. I too use them, but I will never draw conclusions based on single scores and because of my experience as well, I would rather test out my workflow and compare from there and see if it makes a difference between machines.
[doublepost=1532704371][/doublepost]

Cool! Thanks for letting us know.
Click to expand...
I think the spirit of a good benchmark is the drag race. Car enthusiasts have the quarter mile, we have Cinebench. Neither tells the whole story but you will find out who’s got some mojo under the hood.
[doublepost=1532704931][/doublepost]
RumorConsumer said:
Barefeats.com looks like they'll be coming out with a more robust set of comparisons. Lets wait and see.
Click to expand...
69846E57-3648-4CFB-B3C9-264E8AFCF829.png


Maybe somebody wants to volunteer to be remote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.anthonyramos
I've got mine i9 now. I get between 1040 and 1080 every time.
Room temperature is 31 degrees (It's a hot day in Sweden today)

Idle is 44 degrees, when on full load first 100 degrees later on 90 degrees.

The processor jumps up to around 4,4 Ghz and then down to 3.3 ghz.
 
blazezaku said:
Nope

The only sticker I had to remove came off pretty easily since it only has small square adhesive pads on specific spots.
Click to expand...
How hard is to do this? I've actually benchmarked 1120 on my i9 now both on MacOs and Bootcamp, but if I decide to keep it I may want to do this to see how high it could go.

I've replaced the batteries of my MBP 2014 a month ago following iFixit's guide. That basically required me to take apart the whole system ,but not take the cooling system from the CPU (at the end I realized I could just uncoupled the battery and use a wire to get them out).
 
GerritB said:
How hard is to do this? I've actually benchmarked 1120 on my i9 now both on MacOs and Bootcamp, but if I decide to keep it I may want to do this to see how high it could go.

I've replaced the batteries of my MBP 2014 a month ago following iFixit's guide. That basically required me to take apart the whole system ,but not take the cooling system from the CPU (at the end I realized I could just uncoupled the battery and use a wire to get them out).
Click to expand...

With the right tools (ifixit screw driver set) it was pretty easy, i followed this video

And took pictures with my phone to remember the location of the tiny screws.

The thermals in the light to medium loads improved alot and the temperature spikes i see frequently is also gone.
 
fate0311 said:
Yea let me spend 3899 on my i9 and then rip apart the entire laptop to re-paste a processor.

Some of you guys are nuts, whether it is like clockwork for you doing it or not it is about principle.

None of you should have to do this to begin with.
Click to expand...

Haha you're right this is kinda ridiculous the macbook pro always had inadequate cooling but this year's 6 core processors are really pushing it.
But i also had to delid the desktop 8700k and add liquid metal to make it run cool.
So its probably intel unable to shrink their processors dies these years and just keep adding cores to compete with AMD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back