Hands on with Apple's 15-inch 2018 MacBook Pro with i7 processor

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited August 2018
Apple's latest MacBook Pro refresh launched a week ago, and we've now spent some time with the base 15-inch model with six-core i7 processor. Read on for our first look and impressions as well as benchmarks for what will be one of the most popular MacBook Pro configurations.




Design

From the outside, there are no discernible difference between the 2018 MacBook Pros and those from the last few years. It still features a pair of Thunderbolt 3 ports on the left side and another pair next to a headphone jack on the right-hand side.

2018 15-inch MacBook Pro


Colors still pop on the latest displays. The new unit now supports True Tone, Apple's color temperature-shifting feature that tints the display based on the environment. It uses a pair of ambient light sensors embedded into the display to detect the lighting in the room and then adjusts the display to match. This tech premiered in the iPad Pro a few years back, before coming to the iPhone, and now coming to the Mac.

True Tone definitely is easier on the eyes in our fluorescent-lit office. Previously, the display would come off a bit blue. But now, the color matches much better and isn't so strenuous when staring at it all day.

Apple has had some of the best built-in laptop speakers in the industry, and the new model improved on that. Apple is clearly putting their audio knowledge to use with a much fuller sound. There are noticeable improvements to both the mid-range, as well as the lows in these new speakers.

The trackpad is still as large as ever and sits right below the new third-generation butterfly keyboard. These are the same chiclet-style keys, but have a new butterfly mechanism underneath that is designed to be quieter.

Third-gen keyboard

We were very excited to test this new keyboard out, especially to determine any changes that lent themselves to improved reliability, which could be a serious issue for owners of previous models with the butterfly keyboard.

2018 15-inch MacBook Pro Keyboard


Not long after the first MacBook Pros were arriving at customers doorsteps, iFixit discovered that under each key was a new silicone membrane, that the repair company suggested was really intended to repel any debris that would try to lodge itself underneath. This errant debris is allegedly what caused many failures, so using this film to keep it out -- if that is what is actually for -- may go a long way towards reliability.

That film also contributes to the quieter keys, which were immediately noticeable. Tapping away quickly can still raise some loud clicks, but by-and-large, the new keyboard was a huge difference from before.

It still has the same key travel and typing feel as the 2016 and 2017 MacBook Pro, just with less noise.

Hey, Siri

Above the keyboard is the same Touch Bar many have come to love (and many haven't). Touch ID on the right-hand side of the Touch Bar is still powered by one of Apple's custom chips, the T2. This secure chip first debuted in the iMac Pro, with previous generation MacBook pros using the T1.

2018 15-inch MacBook Pro


Apple's T2 is able to take on more system processes and is actually able to enable "Hey, Siri" for the first time on a Mac.

Apple introduces this feature right after first booting up the new machines, walking users through the voice enrollment process similar to on iOS.

The setup is the same -- macOS asks the user to repeat several different commands that also act as a bit of a refresher on what Siri can do on the Mac, like checking the weather and opening specific folders.

This worked out pretty well for us, even in a room filled with other Apple devices that support Hey, Siri. Voice recognition seemed spot on and definitely seemed to make it a bit more useful. It will become even more helpful this fall with macOS Mojave.

In macOS Mojave, Siri gains new features including new areas of knowledge, the ability to find your various devices, and support for HomeKit.

Performance

2018 15-inch MacBook Pro


For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It sports a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2016 model with an Intel 2.9GHz Core i7 which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

Graphics-wise, internally we have integrated Intel UHD 630 graphics. In our Geekbench OpeCL test, oddly, our late-2016 15-inch MacBook Pro with an Intel HD 530 actually continued to clock higher. The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179. There isn't much difference, but it is worth noting.

In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it.

This year Apple also upgraded the ram to DDR4 instead of LPDDR3, which is definitely going to draw a bit more power than years past. To help compensate, the internal batteries are a bit larger across the board. This shouldn't garner any additional usage time though.

More to come

2018 15-inch MacBook Pro


We here at AppleInsider are just getting started with these new MacBook Pros. Stay tuned for our coverage and benchmarks of the top-of-the-line i9 model. If you haven't already, be sure to check out our benchmarks on the 13-inch 2018 MacBook Pros.

Where to buy

Apple authorized reseller Adorama is currently offering AI readers $100 off Apple's 2018 15-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar with coupon code APINSIDER. Shipping is also free and Adorama will not collect sales tax on orders shipped outside New York and New Jersey. For many shoppers, this can equate to an additional $290 to $635 in savings on top of the coupon discount. These are the exact same systems carried by the Apple Store and include Apple's standard 1-year limited warranty, just with additional savings. Want to see how these deals stack up? Check out our 2018 15-inch MacBook Pro Price Guide.

To activate the discount, you must use this shopping link and enter coupon code APINSIDER during checkout in the same browsing session (look for a link that says "Do you have a gift card or promo code?" next to the gift icon and click that to bring up a coupon code field). Need help? Send us a note at [email protected] and we will do our best to assist.

Looking for 2018 13-inch MacBook Pros? Check out our Price Guide for up-to-date prices and availability.

2.2GHz Core i7 systems

Radeon Pro 555X graphics
16GB RAM 32GB RAM Radeon Pro 560X graphics
16GB RAM 32GB RAM 2.6GHz Core i7 systems

Radeon Pro 560X graphics
16GB RAM 32GB RAM 2.9GHz Core i9 systems

Radeon Pro 555X graphics
16GB RAM 32GB RAM Radeon Pro 560X graphics
16GB RAM 32GB RAM
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 71
    nunzynunzy Posts: 662member
    This is killer. Apple delivers.
  • Reply 2 of 71
    KITAKITA Posts: 201member

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    Aviesheknunzy
  • Reply 3 of 71
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 726member
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    Can't even defeat XPS in thermals, not a big surprise if you haven't made any change to design.
    Avieshekwilliamlondon
  • Reply 4 of 71
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,979administrator
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 5 of 71
    KITAKITA Posts: 201member
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    No, my focus was intentional.

    I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
    Avieshekwilliamlondondws-2bloggerblog
  • Reply 6 of 71
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,979member
    KITA said:
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    No, my focus was intentional.

    I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
    Since I'm unaware of what your actual workload / workflow is that requires a laptop computer that doesn't throttle, and if the MBP doesn't fit your performance needs, why not just buy the Dell and be done with it?

    Otherwise, why not have a bit of patience and wait for Mojave and whatever application updates that will follow to get a reasonable idea of how these MBP and applications will actually work together. Everything up until now seems quite premature for decision making, other than to wait for confirmation one way or another.
    edited July 2018 bb-15StrangeDays
  • Reply 7 of 71
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,359member
    tmay said:
    KITA said:
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    No, my focus was intentional.

    I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
    Since I'm unaware of what your actual workload / workflow is that requires a laptop computer that doesn't throttle, and if the MBP doesn't fit your performance needs, why not just buy the Dell and be done with it?

    Otherwise, why not have a bit of patience and wait for Mojave and whatever application updates that will follow to get a reasonable idea of how these MBP and applications will actually work together. Everything up until now seems quite premature for decision making, other than to wait for confirmation one way or another.
    I don’t think he cares about any of that. For some reason (maybe he’s paid? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) he comes here to point out how Macs are crap. Have you ever gone to a Huawai forum to point out how their build quality sucks monkey balls? I certainly haven’t and can’t imagine under what circumstances I’d ever do that.
    bb-15pscooter63StrangeDays
  • Reply 8 of 71
    ElCapitanElCapitan Posts: 280member

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    You can't patch your way out of lack of physical cooling - everything from the heatsink, the cooling paste, the air conducts and the size/capacity of the fans. The enclosure is simply not scaled for the processor, GPU and support electronics placed inside. 
    edited July 2018 williamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 71
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 726member
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    KITA said:
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    No, my focus was intentional.

    I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
    Since I'm unaware of what your actual workload / workflow is that requires a laptop computer that doesn't throttle, and if the MBP doesn't fit your performance needs, why not just buy the Dell and be done with it?

    Otherwise, why not have a bit of patience and wait for Mojave and whatever application updates that will follow to get a reasonable idea of how these MBP and applications will actually work together. Everything up until now seems quite premature for decision making, other than to wait for confirmation one way or another.
    I don’t think he cares about any of that. For some reason (maybe he’s paid? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) he comes here to point out how Macs are crap. Have you ever gone to a Huawai forum to point out how their build quality sucks monkey balls? I certainly haven’t and can’t imagine under what circumstances I’d ever do that.
    Although this time he (or Notebookcheck.com) is right about the cooling.  I knew the 8th gen will be a lot hard to cool due to its nature, and a redesign might helped a lot (but not completely).  I didn't see the any change in thermal systems though.

    I don't know what Apple is thinking this time, maybe just following their "schedule", they knew is bad but still choose not to bothering it anyway, or they're being confident that "everything works out just fine?"  

    10nm next year might change the whole issue, and that's another year.
    edited July 2018
  • Reply 10 of 71
    hypoluxahypoluxa Posts: 657member
    This is a nice update. Glad they were able to get it up to 32GB in RAM. Long overdue. 

    I am looking at the 15" 2.6GHz model to possibly replace my  2012 MBPro 2.6GHz (9,1) non retina. Just have to get a hub for it with all my peripherals I'll need to connect to it. Looking into the OWC TB3 13 port hub. It's a tad pricey but it's got all the ports I need.
    edited July 2018 neo-tech
  • Reply 11 of 71
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,516member
    @AI:  Where did you get 4,360 and 11,979 for the top-of-the-line 2017 MacBook Pro (3.1 GHz i7)? Even browser.geekbench.ca reports 4,627 and 15,549 for this model and those figures are conservative.
    For the 2018 model you tested, I also got significantly higher scores than you did, in duplicate runs, at an Apple Store:  5,040 and 22,500.  (browser.geekbench.ca reports conservative 4,920 and 21,074.)
    edited July 2018
  • Reply 12 of 71
    racerhomie3racerhomie3 Posts: 1,169member
    KITA said:
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    No, my focus was intentional.

    I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
    Get a desktop , like a Mac Pro, or others. 
    This is normal.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 13 of 71
    tipootipoo Posts: 1,058member
    " Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively."

    Again, the low score for the top end 2017 seems suspect 

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4613082
  • Reply 14 of 71
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,359member
    DuhSesame said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    KITA said:
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    No, my focus was intentional.

    I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
    Since I'm unaware of what your actual workload / workflow is that requires a laptop computer that doesn't throttle, and if the MBP doesn't fit your performance needs, why not just buy the Dell and be done with it?

    Otherwise, why not have a bit of patience and wait for Mojave and whatever application updates that will follow to get a reasonable idea of how these MBP and applications will actually work together. Everything up until now seems quite premature for decision making, other than to wait for confirmation one way or another.
    I don’t think he cares about any of that. For some reason (maybe he’s paid? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) he comes here to point out how Macs are crap. Have you ever gone to a Huawai forum to point out how their build quality sucks monkey balls? I certainly haven’t and can’t imagine under what circumstances I’d ever do that.
    Although this time he (or Notebookcheck.com) is right about the cooling.  I knew the 8th gen will be a lot hard to cool due to its nature, and a redesign might helped a lot (but not completely).  I didn't see the any change in thermal systems though.

    I don't know what Apple is thinking this time, maybe just following their "schedule", they knew is bad but still choose not to bothering it anyway, or they're being confident that "everything works out just fine?"  

    10nm next year might change the whole issue, and that's another year.
    It seems like the best of a bad situation brought on by Intel delays, or which Apple is still wholly dependent on.

    I have to assume that when they design a case they plan ahead for the half-decade plus they’ll be using that case.

    I’m still curious how they were able to increase the battery capacity significantly without increasing the size or weight. Well, it seems clear they shaving a significant amount off the top casing, but I’m curious why they could do that now but not previously? I doubt milling complexity or cost is an issue, and saving on aluminium is a bonus, so why not have done it previously? Is the top casing now less rigid? Are using a stronger grade of aluminium, like they had to do with the iPhone 6S over the iPhone 6?
  • Reply 15 of 71
    tipootipoo Posts: 1,058member

    "Graphics-wise, internally we have integrated Intel UHD 630 graphics. In our Geekbench test, oddly, our late-2016 15-inch MacBook Pro with an Intel HD 530 actually continued to clock higher. The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179. There isn't much difference, but it is worth noting."


    Andrew, you know there's a dedicated Radeon Pro sitting beside that, right? Just to make sure :P 
  • Reply 16 of 71
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 726member
    Soli said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    KITA said:
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    No, my focus was intentional.

    I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
    Since I'm unaware of what your actual workload / workflow is that requires a laptop computer that doesn't throttle, and if the MBP doesn't fit your performance needs, why not just buy the Dell and be done with it?

    Otherwise, why not have a bit of patience and wait for Mojave and whatever application updates that will follow to get a reasonable idea of how these MBP and applications will actually work together. Everything up until now seems quite premature for decision making, other than to wait for confirmation one way or another.
    I don’t think he cares about any of that. For some reason (maybe he’s paid? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) he comes here to point out how Macs are crap. Have you ever gone to a Huawai forum to point out how their build quality sucks monkey balls? I certainly haven’t and can’t imagine under what circumstances I’d ever do that.
    Although this time he (or Notebookcheck.com) is right about the cooling.  I knew the 8th gen will be a lot hard to cool due to its nature, and a redesign might helped a lot (but not completely).  I didn't see the any change in thermal systems though.

    I don't know what Apple is thinking this time, maybe just following their "schedule", they knew is bad but still choose not to bothering it anyway, or they're being confident that "everything works out just fine?"  

    10nm next year might change the whole issue, and that's another year.
    It seems like the best of a bad situation brought on by Intel delays, or which Apple is still wholly dependent on.

    I have to assume that when they design a case they plan ahead for the half-decade plus they’ll be using that case.

    I’m still curious how they were able to increase the battery capacity significantly without increasing the size or weight. Well, it seems clear they shaving a significant amount off the top casing, but I’m curious why they could do that now but not previously? I doubt milling complexity or cost is an issue, and saving on aluminium is a bonus, so why not have done it previously? Is the top casing now less rigid? Are using a stronger grade of aluminium, like they had to do with the iPhone 6S over the iPhone 6?
    I think they didn’t fulfill their batteries compartment to begin with.  Remember how much empty space they have in 2016-2017?
  • Reply 17 of 71
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,359member
    DuhSesame said:
    Soli said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    KITA said:
    KITA said:

    For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

    Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

    That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

    Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:


    You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    No, my focus was intentional.

    I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.
    Since I'm unaware of what your actual workload / workflow is that requires a laptop computer that doesn't throttle, and if the MBP doesn't fit your performance needs, why not just buy the Dell and be done with it?

    Otherwise, why not have a bit of patience and wait for Mojave and whatever application updates that will follow to get a reasonable idea of how these MBP and applications will actually work together. Everything up until now seems quite premature for decision making, other than to wait for confirmation one way or another.
    I don’t think he cares about any of that. For some reason (maybe he’s paid? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) he comes here to point out how Macs are crap. Have you ever gone to a Huawai forum to point out how their build quality sucks monkey balls? I certainly haven’t and can’t imagine under what circumstances I’d ever do that.
    Although this time he (or Notebookcheck.com) is right about the cooling.  I knew the 8th gen will be a lot hard to cool due to its nature, and a redesign might helped a lot (but not completely).  I didn't see the any change in thermal systems though.

    I don't know what Apple is thinking this time, maybe just following their "schedule", they knew is bad but still choose not to bothering it anyway, or they're being confident that "everything works out just fine?"  

    10nm next year might change the whole issue, and that's another year.
    It seems like the best of a bad situation brought on by Intel delays, or which Apple is still wholly dependent on.

    I have to assume that when they design a case they plan ahead for the half-decade plus they’ll be using that case.

    I’m still curious how they were able to increase the battery capacity significantly without increasing the size or weight. Well, it seems clear they shaving a significant amount off the top casing, but I’m curious why they could do that now but not previously? I doubt milling complexity or cost is an issue, and saving on aluminium is a bonus, so why not have done it previously? Is the top casing now less rigid? Are using a stronger grade of aluminium, like they had to do with the iPhone 6S over the iPhone 6?
    I think they didn’t fulfill their batteries compartment to begin with.  Remember how much empty space they have in 2016-2017?
    It’s not just about volume. They also kept the weight the same. Maybe they were able to drop the weight in other areas, but it seems like the casing is the most likely place they were able to achieve this goal, hence my questions.

    I think iFixit (or someone) weighed the batteries and found them to be heavier YoY, so it’s not lighter battery tech.

    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 18 of 71
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 272member
    ElCapitan said:

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    You can't patch your way out of lack of physical cooling - everything from the heatsink, the cooling paste, the air conducts and the size/capacity of the fans. The enclosure is simply not scaled for the processor, GPU and support electronics placed inside. 
    In Windows throttling can be adjusted through software. 

    http://isboxer.com/wiki/HOWTO:Disable_CPU_Throttling_in_Windows

  • Reply 19 of 71
    ElCapitanElCapitan Posts: 280member
    bb-15 said:
    ElCapitan said:

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    You can't patch your way out of lack of physical cooling - everything from the heatsink, the cooling paste, the air conducts and the size/capacity of the fans. The enclosure is simply not scaled for the processor, GPU and support electronics placed inside. 
    In Windows throttling can be adjusted through software. 

    http://isboxer.com/wiki/HOWTO:Disable_CPU_Throttling_in_Windows

    You can of course to a certain extent make adjustments, but if it start throttling below rated base speed for average workloads such as a longer Xcode compile, then the thermal design is flawed. 
    edited July 2018
  • Reply 20 of 71
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 272member
    ElCapitan said:
    bb-15 said:
    ElCapitan said:

    "In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

    You can't patch your way out of lack of physical cooling - everything from the heatsink, the cooling paste, the air conducts and the size/capacity of the fans. The enclosure is simply not scaled for the processor, GPU and support electronics placed inside. 
    In Windows throttling can be adjusted through software. 

    http://isboxer.com/wiki/HOWTO:Disable_CPU_Throttling_in_Windows

    You can of course to a certain extent make adjustments, but if it start throttling below rated base speed for average workloads such as a longer Xcode compile, then the thermal design is flawed. 
    Thermal design is flexible due to the amount of fan use. The frequency of use of the fan can be adjusted through software. 
    I’ve had several Windows laptops/desktops and most of them were noisy due to continual fan noise. 
    Loud fan noise is not part of Apple’s design philosophy but the company could put that aside with the new MacBook Pro and give the user the option for more fan cooling.  
    edited July 2018 StrangeDaysspace2001
Sign In or Register to comment.