You have at least another 18 months to speculate what that MacBook Pro might be like, use your time wisely.
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.
New 8-Core MacBook Pro Offers Solid Performance Improvements According to Benchmark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have at least another 18 months to speculate what that MacBook Pro might be like, use your time wisely.
Over there you complain about the human condition and how it would be more humane to treat workers better i.e. more money.
Over here you whine when the price of a product goes up. Never mind inflation, cost of raw materials growing due to "cleaner mines", less pollution, etc.
Make up your 'effing mind. Do you want cheap goods or humane conditions for workers in under developed countries? You don't get both.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick 2.
Over here you whine when the price of a product goes up. Never mind inflation, cost of raw materials growing due to "cleaner mines", less pollution, etc.
Make up your 'effing mind. Do you want cheap goods or humane conditions for workers in under developed countries? You don't get both.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick 2.
It probably doubles as hot plate—the world's first hotplate with internet connectivity; a 'smart hot plate' you could say.
"You won't ever know the keyboard is broken, because you won't be able to touch it anyway."
"You won't ever know the keyboard is broken, because you won't be able to touch it anyway."
Last edited:
You might check the tdp published by Intel. The Mac Pro uses a 130 w tdp Xeon, the MBP uses a 45 w TDP. That doesn't even get into the thermals from the graphics cards. so yah, not directly comparable at all
(Your prices are too low for comparable, the Samsung 970 is at a discounted price of $250, someone can always compare a cheap product to a better product and say "its cheaper)). Your point is right on, though. Interesting questions is why Microsoft sells an upgrade from 512 to 1 TB for the same $400 price, when it is far slower. At least the speed of the MBP is comparable to the Samsung 970 for the $400. so the question is, why are internal upgrades so expensive for multiple manufacturers? But at least Apple's are fast.
You should prove that, because it's not true.
if you compare a MBP to the Dell XPS the difference is not much at all (don't use the average scores published by Geekbench, search on the CPU - there are problems with the averages due to ridiculously low benchmarks not removed before averaging). Dell XPS 9570 under Windows (Linux is usually faster) yields around 26000, while the MacBookPro15,3 also yields around 26000. that is not 30% (more like 0%). If you are trying to compare a laptop to a desktop, that's just wrong, but a thin laptop to a thin laptop is a fair comparison, and there is little difference. and that is with Apple using 2400 MHz memory vs. the 2666 Mhz upward limit of the CPU (I presume to save power and heat)
Another trap in Geekbench is users who are overclocking, where it doesn't show up in the component listing, and not accurately reporting the devices they are testing. Geekbench should literally throw out the extremes before averaging as this is usually considered "bad data". They should also either report or adjust for CPU and RAM loading which impacts the results. For example, if you set up a new computer, the disk is usually indexed by the OS. If you benchmark during this phase, you will report lower numbers because the CPU and RAM are actually busy.
Did you read what you quoted, especially the part: "In Geekbench they will look similar"?
Well said, I would add that only a small percentage of people actually upgrade their machines once purchased. This is because upgrading components won't really do all that much more for you, versus upgrading and getting a new machine (remember when people though USB was fast?, now it's not even I the race with TB3), and what good is it to replace my SSD in my old laptop when the ram is only DDR3 1600 MHz. Also people think they need 32 GB of ram, but 16 is usually way more than plenty. so you don't tend to fix a problem that you don't actually have
[doublepost=1558666493][/doublepost]
I'm not sure how you arrive at this. The intel chips used have a TDP of 45 watts. These are not run at full load 24/7 Xeons. You wouldn't put those in a laptop
Geekbench is mislead benchmark which is designed help for marketing especially for mobile devices.
It run every test task too short and insert idle time which is non sense for something require cpu intensive.
Customer may require short burst in their daily work, but for fast CPU like mbpr 15, you get faster from 150ms to 140ms, and you don't feel any faster.
If you need something must-tasking and cpu intensive, it will quickly hit the temperature wall as real world no idle time between every task and not run multi and different thing parallel.
It run every test task too short and insert idle time which is non sense for something require cpu intensive.
Customer may require short burst in their daily work, but for fast CPU like mbpr 15, you get faster from 150ms to 140ms, and you don't feel any faster.
If you need something must-tasking and cpu intensive, it will quickly hit the temperature wall as real world no idle time between every task and not run multi and different thing parallel.
Apple has finally learned how to do basic math. They must’ve just learned that 8 is double 4. Well I guess that’s progress.....
wow, what a stupid statement.
[doublepost=1558671518][/doublepost]
Valuable info if you dont need to run Xcode -- otherwise, WORTHLESS.
That is not very accurate.
Even Intel's ultra optimized 14nm++++++ hits a wall on CPUs that are cooled with consumer level solutions(big air coolers or water coolers) at 5ghz. Past this point the performance gains are not worth the generated heat and power consumption.
Also a nodes shrink even more hitting high Ghz will be more and more difficult.
The solutions are to widen the design(increases the IPC), increase the number of cores and optimize for multi-core, build more specialized blocks in the silicon to accelerate specific workloads. Going foreword because of technical reasons the frequency will be one of the things which will see the least gains or no gains at all.
HP’s latest ex950 NVMe is $150 for 1TB, $300 for 2TB. It’s on par with the 970 EVO Plus.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hp-ex950-nvme-ssd-2tb,5306-2.html
Will be looking forward to some real life extended test results once people get their hands on these
Cool, so this laptop is just a bit faster than my Mac Pro from 2010, amazing how fast tech evolves right?
But your Mac Pro will probably be faster for sustained workloads. I can't see that case/cooling system coping with one of Intels 8 core chips! Especially since intel are... somewhat flexible with the truth around TDP.
I own a maxed-out 13" MacBook Pro 2018, and I love it. It is a portable that doubles as a desktop.
The thing runs a 5K monitor, has ultra-snappy SSD, and it does everything far faster than any other Mac I have owned. I render 1080 very fast in FCPX and can do music composition and graphics without any hitch. The only major problem I have encountered is the keyboard+frame are not as sturdy as needed--so I use a wireless keyboard/mouse in home.
Seeing the state of the 15" 2019 makes me want it, because the boost in speed would be close to 200% for multi-core. However, I can do with a 2018 for a few years. Yet, I like where the newer models are going. I'm looking forward to Intel machines with the 10nm or 7nm die; those will be amazing with 8+ cores and lots of zippy graphics processing and 3D memory, etc.
The price isn't daunting, because the performance is great (depending), and the package is brilliant.
Apple, on the other hand, is blowing it with software and their ability to improve and innovate leads they clearly held earlier in the decade. Siri could have become a versatile assistant, but it's just an automated fumble thumbs. iTunes has turned into a morass of garbage layered over a confusing collection of disparate music, corralled by a confused and confusing organizer program. iLife programs have not "gone the distance" and become ultra-capable, though they are pretty good. FCPX has done better across the years, but it should be stacked with useful effects and sounds and everything a filmmaker needs; in 2019 it is still a good start, but you HAVE TO reach outward to get better accessories and efficiency. Apple should have developed their AR/VR by now, but that opportunity is now slipping by; the Oculus Quest should have been the Apple Seed leading into virtual play and social environments.
The thing runs a 5K monitor, has ultra-snappy SSD, and it does everything far faster than any other Mac I have owned. I render 1080 very fast in FCPX and can do music composition and graphics without any hitch. The only major problem I have encountered is the keyboard+frame are not as sturdy as needed--so I use a wireless keyboard/mouse in home.
Seeing the state of the 15" 2019 makes me want it, because the boost in speed would be close to 200% for multi-core. However, I can do with a 2018 for a few years. Yet, I like where the newer models are going. I'm looking forward to Intel machines with the 10nm or 7nm die; those will be amazing with 8+ cores and lots of zippy graphics processing and 3D memory, etc.
The price isn't daunting, because the performance is great (depending), and the package is brilliant.
Apple, on the other hand, is blowing it with software and their ability to improve and innovate leads they clearly held earlier in the decade. Siri could have become a versatile assistant, but it's just an automated fumble thumbs. iTunes has turned into a morass of garbage layered over a confusing collection of disparate music, corralled by a confused and confusing organizer program. iLife programs have not "gone the distance" and become ultra-capable, though they are pretty good. FCPX has done better across the years, but it should be stacked with useful effects and sounds and everything a filmmaker needs; in 2019 it is still a good start, but you HAVE TO reach outward to get better accessories and efficiency. Apple should have developed their AR/VR by now, but that opportunity is now slipping by; the Oculus Quest should have been the Apple Seed leading into virtual play and social environments.