I'm curious to know what happens when you have your iPhone next to the Mac and then trigger Siri using "Hey Siri". I assume it is triggered on both devices and both will try to process the request?
When you make a request to Siri then all your Apple kit in the vicinity have a quick chat with each other to decide who should pick up the request. How they decide is one of life’s mysteries.
If I have my phone in my hand then the phone handles it. If the phone is on the desk then the HomePod gets to answer, occasionally deferring to the phone.
its not always clean though and sometimes frustrating. On my way home I raise my Apple Watch and say Siri open my right garage door. great! BUT if my iPhone is on its mag charger in the car it decides ( sometimes) to take over, and doesnt open my garage door, instead siri says I will have to unlock my iPhone first!
Worse - and this could easily be remedied in code, at home I might say siri please call my wife into my watch or iPhone, and it starts sirir, but then my homepod tells me that it cannot make calls not the end of the world, but occasionally very inconvenient.
Forget about benchmarks for the moment. Set the MBP next to the XPS, setup a rendering using the same software (Adobe, whatever) and see who finishes first and by how much. That’s a real world test in my book.
Forget about benchmarks for the moment. Set the MBP next to the XPS, setup a rendering using the same software (Adobe, whatever) and see who finishes first and by how much. That’s a real world test in my book.
Preferably two tests. One that should take a couple minutes, and one that will take maybe 30 minutes.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error. The benchmarks apply to that particular run on that particular machine. Because the numbers don't match yours, doesn't mean that they're wrong. That's the nature of benchmarking.
If every machine got the same reading every time, then there wouldn't be a range of benchmarks listed in the Geekbench database.
Not true about your margin of error claim. You quote 22,179 in one paragraph and then 20,179 shortly thereafter for the same model. That looks like one of those figures is a typo... but which one? You quote 11,797 for the top-of-the-line 2017 15-inch MBP, which is ridiculously low.
Some people know how to obtain meaningful (i.e., accurate) benchmarks and adhere to the necessary procedures to obtain them (when they care). That's why benchmarks (such as Geekbench) I run and report are consistently very near the top of the reported range, not just involving Macs or in the present situation but for all platforms and going back decades.
"Very near the top of the reported range" doesn't mean accurate, it just means very near the top of the reported range. Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back.
I'll talk to Andrew about it.
How about you stick to areas you know something about? Benchmarks I've run in situations where I cared enough to take time to do them right are very near the top of reported ranges... and reproducible. And fix the ridiculous inconsistencies in the article. The wide-ranging variability seen in Geekbench results are often because of inaccurate platform descriptions and because many people run the app without remedying factors that lower the scores.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error. The benchmarks apply to that particular run on that particular machine. Because the numbers don't match yours, doesn't mean that they're wrong. That's the nature of benchmarking.
If every machine got the same reading every time, then there wouldn't be a range of benchmarks listed in the Geekbench database.
Not true about your margin of error claim. You quote 22,179 in one paragraph and then 20,179 shortly thereafter for the same model. That looks like one of those figures is a typo... but which one? You quote 11,797 for the top-of-the-line 2017 15-inch MBP, which is ridiculously low.
Some people know how to obtain meaningful (i.e., accurate) benchmarks and adhere to the necessary procedures to obtain them (when they care). That's why benchmarks (such as Geekbench) I run and report are consistently very near the top of the reported range, not just involving Macs or in the present situation but for all platforms and going back decades.
"Very near the top of the reported range" doesn't mean accurate, it just means very near the top of the reported range. Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back.
I'll talk to Andrew about it.
How about you stick to areas you know something about. And fix the ridiculous inconsistencies in the article.
Mind yourself. You're in no position to be throwing stones. This is the only warning you're going to get.
This all said, Like I said, I've asked Andrew to look into it, and he is. We are fully aware about what can impact benchmarks. We have a protocol for benchmarking which includes two minutes after a fresh reboot, no other user-executed processes running, and so forth. So yeah, we know something about it.
If there's a problem, we'll fix it. If you want to continue this conversation in a civil manner, I am all for it as I feel that you are a good forum member.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error. The benchmarks apply to that particular run on that particular machine. Because the numbers don't match yours, doesn't mean that they're wrong. That's the nature of benchmarking.
If every machine got the same reading every time, then there wouldn't be a range of benchmarks listed in the Geekbench database.
Not true about your margin of error claim. You quote 22,179 in one paragraph and then 20,179 shortly thereafter for the same model. That looks like one of those figures is a typo... but which one? You quote 11,797 for the top-of-the-line 2017 15-inch MBP, which is ridiculously low.
Some people know how to obtain meaningful (i.e., accurate) benchmarks and adhere to the necessary procedures to obtain them (when they care). That's why benchmarks (such as Geekbench) I run and report are consistently very near the top of the reported range, not just involving Macs or in the present situation but for all platforms and going back decades.
Since tests are conducted in the real world, conditions vary, especially with room temperature, which is notable for creating the delta t necessary for heat transfer. The cooler the test conditions, the larger the delta t, the better the heat transfer, the better the result, all else being equal, which might not be true either.
Perhaps the biggest contributor to wide-ranging scores is people not quitting extraneous apps and system extensions before launching the benchmark.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error. The benchmarks apply to that particular run on that particular machine. Because the numbers don't match yours, doesn't mean that they're wrong. That's the nature of benchmarking.
If every machine got the same reading every time, then there wouldn't be a range of benchmarks listed in the Geekbench database.
Not true about your margin of error claim. You quote 22,179 in one paragraph and then 20,179 shortly thereafter for the same model. That looks like one of those figures is a typo... but which one? You quote 11,797 for the top-of-the-line 2017 15-inch MBP, which is ridiculously low.
Some people know how to obtain meaningful (i.e., accurate) benchmarks and adhere to the necessary procedures to obtain them (when they care). That's why benchmarks (such as Geekbench) I run and report are consistently very near the top of the reported range, not just involving Macs or in the present situation but for all platforms and going back decades.
Since tests are conducted in the real world, conditions vary, especially with room temperature, which is notable for creating the delta t necessary for heat transfer. The cooler the test conditions, the larger the delta t, the better the heat transfer, the better the result, all else being equal, which might not be true either.
Perhaps the biggest contributor to wide-ranging scores is people not quitting extraneous apps and system extensions before launching the benchmark.
I agree. There are all kinds of possible issues with these posted benchmarks.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
So we re-ran some of these tests to confirm our results and cleaned up the text. Lots of years and processors running around. All of our numbers were correct, BUT we did neglect to be more specific on the second Geekbench benchmark that was tripping people up.
Our base model 2018 2.2GHz i7 processor earned 4,884 and 22,179 on the single and multicore Geekbench 4 tests respectively. The 20,179 is on the Geekbench 4 OpenCL test, not the single/multicore one. It looks like the "OpenCL compute test" designation is what got dropped somewhere along the way. Apologies for the omission.
Forget about benchmarks for the moment. Set the MBP next to the XPS, setup a rendering using the same software (Adobe, whatever) and see who finishes first and by how much. That’s a real world test in my book.
Well yes, as long as you bear in mind the outcome of the test could be “don’t be stupid enough to use Adobe rendering software on MBPs”.
Differences between how software is written for the relevant OS can have massive influence. In that Dave Lee video for example, the actual, real take home is how badly Premiere has been ported by Adobe onto Mac OS. I have been hating that company since, oh, about 1997.
The MacBook Pro enclosure is a perfect example of skating where the puck is supposed to be, but then having the other player (Intel) making a bad pass. By all expectations, Intel should have been down to a smaller process by now, which would have made the MacBook Pro enclosure sufficient. What makes this more annoying is that Apple did the same thing with the trash can Mac Pro and the GPU cooling.
I’m thinking along similar lines though I’m not annoyed. Apple wants to make elegant computers. And part of that is having devices which are quiet. This is well known, after all the first Mac (supervised by Jobs) had no fan. With these new MacBook Pro Intel CPUs, especially the i9, Apple is faced with thermal loads which don’t fit their “quiet” design parameters. As discussed before about the i9, Apple could give the user the option to have the fan blasting at almost all times. In the Windows world this kind of PC/laptop is well known, sounding like a plane taking off.
Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. [...] The two-year-old model earned a 20,908 while the 2018 base model 15-inch earned a 20,179.
Which is it then: 22,179 or 20,179? My own testing at an Apple store repeatedly got 5,040 single-core and 22,500 multi-core on a base model 15". Geekbench browser shows the top-of-the-line 2016 2.9 GHz i7 model scores 4,305 and 14,137. That's very different from the 20K+ figure you're reporting.
For the top-of-the-line 2017 3.1 GHz i7 model, AI strangely reports 4,360 single-core and 11,979 multi-core, which are far from what Geekbench browser shows (4,627 and 15,549). In my own testing of the top-of-the-line 2017 model, I got 4822 single-core and 15,652 multi-core.
IMHO there are far too many inconsistencies and errors in this article to have passed editing, particularly when people are looking so closely now at performance and throttling.
So we re-ran some of these tests to confirm our results and cleaned up the text. Lots of years and processors running around. All of our numbers were correct, BUT we did neglect to be more specific on the second Geekbench benchmark that was tripping people up.
Our base model 2018 2.2GHz i7 processor earned 4,884 and 22,179 on the single and multicore Geekbench 4 tests respectively. The 20,179 is on the Geekbench 4 OpenCL test, not the single/multicore one. It looks like the "OpenCL compute test" designation is what got dropped somewhere along the way. Apologies for the omission.
I'm curious to know what happens when you have your iPhone next to the Mac and then trigger Siri using "Hey Siri". I assume it is triggered on both devices and both will try to process the request?
When you make a request to Siri then all your Apple kit in the vicinity have a quick chat with each other to decide who should pick up the request. How they decide is one of life’s mysteries.
If I have my phone in my hand then the phone handles it. If the phone is on the desk then the HomePod gets to answer, occasionally deferring to the phone.
its not always clean though and sometimes frustrating. On my way home I raise my Apple Watch and say Siri open my right garage door. great! BUT if my iPhone is on its mag charger in the car it decides ( sometimes) to take over, and doesnt open my garage door, instead siri says I will have to unlock my iPhone first!
Worse - and this could easily be remedied in code, at home I might say siri please call my wife into my watch or iPhone, and it starts sirir, but then my homepod tells me that it cannot make calls not the end of the world, but occasionally very inconvenient.
Well that’s why I said how it decides is one of life’s mysteries.
The Homepod will sometimes say it can’t handle a request … so why didn’t you let the phone take it, idiot!
The MacBook Pro enclosure is a perfect example of skating where the puck is supposed to be, but then having the other player (Intel) making a bad pass. By all expectations, Intel should have been down to a smaller process by now, which would have made the MacBook Pro enclosure sufficient. What makes this more annoying is that Apple did the same thing with the trash can Mac Pro and the GPU cooling.
I’m thinking along similar lines though I’m not annoyed. Apple wants to make elegant computers. And part of that is having devices which are quiet. This is well known, after all the first Mac (supervised by Jobs) had no fan. With these new MacBook Pro Intel CPUs, especially the i9, Apple is faced with thermal loads which don’t fit their “quiet” design parameters. As discussed before about the i9, Apple could give the user the option to have the fan blasting at almost all times. In the Windows world this kind of PC/laptop is well known, sounding like a plane taking off.
Sounds like an Asus I used to own … before it burnt out.
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.
But wait, didn’t everybody say they ought to just toss the latest CPUs in these things and gosh it’s so easy why is Apple so lazy why don’t they just toss parts in there?
Well, yes, because everyone else is an expert.
The machines throttle to preserve the life of the components. This is something Apple has always done because they make machines for folk who do actual work, rather than folk who are obsessed with benchmarks. The only thing that matters is real world usage: is this, in general a faster machine than it is replacing?
But having read a few benchmarks, the usual suspects are demanding that Apple build them a machine they can barbecue their gonads on, as long as it doesn’t throttle. Sounds very much like the people who would rather the iPhone shutdown down completely rather than slow down.
I don’t give a toss about benchmarks. I take the machine, kick the tyres for a week, and if it improves my workflow, it stays.
One thing though: this machine has “stopgap” written all over it. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that Apple was going to continue with 2017 model until Intel delivered the real mobile chip, but they now have reason to believe that Intel will deliver later than they originally thought.
Apple has been screwing up royally lately; versa mount, dongles, keyboard, TouchBar, and now performance.
The performance issue is, in my opinion, just another reason why they need their own processors.
Performance per watt, is key.
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.
Thrilled with my OWC TB3 Dock. Originally has an OWC TB2 dock, and now it's my spare for mobile setups of my editing station.
Apple has been screwing up royally lately; versa mount, dongles, keyboard, TouchBar, and now performance.
The performance issue is, in my opinion, just another reason why they need their own processors.
Performance per watt, is key.
Bringing up the VESA mount (probably for the iMac Pro) at the top of a list criticizing Apple as a whole is immediately suspect as just spouting anti Apple bias. - My guess is that someone saw a YouTube video about the VESA iMac Pro mount and concluded that all of Apple should be condemned beginning with a very niche product.
- To me “screwing up royally” would refer to a common problem with a major product like the Pixel 2 XL having screen burn in issues. (Of course Google isn't going to be trashed by the majority of techies since Android has dominant marketshare.)
But my bringing up a few user reports would still be anecdotal evidence (the experience of a few people in a total customer base of hundreds of millions). * To look at Apple’s performance as a whole against the competition (the only fair way imo), it is better to look at surveys.
- Apple has some of the highest rated smartphones.
** I’m not denying that customers can have problems with Apple products. It is a fact that repair services have existed since the beginning of personal tech. - What I am saying is that overall Apple has not been screwing up royally.
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.
But wait, didn’t everybody say they ought to just toss the latest CPUs in these things and gosh it’s so easy why is Apple so lazy why don’t they just toss parts in there?
Well, yes, because everyone else is an expert.
The machines throttle to preserve the life of the components. This is something Apple has always done because they make machines for folk who do actual work, rather than folk who are obsessed with benchmarks. The only thing that matters is real world usage: is this, in general a faster machine than it is replacing?
But having read a few benchmarks, the usual suspects are demanding that Apple build them a machine they can barbecue their gonads on, as long as it doesn’t throttle. Sounds very much like the people who would rather the iPhone shutdown down completely rather than slow down.
I don’t give a toss about benchmarks. I take the machine, kick the tyres for a week, and if it improves my workflow, it stays.
One thing though: this machine has “stopgap” written all over it. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that Apple was going to continue with 2017 model until Intel delivered the real mobile chip, but they now have reason to believe that Intel will deliver later than they originally thought.
I posted this in the thread about the i9, but reposted in this i7 thread so that people could have some new links to benchmarks;
Watch this video. If you aren't using Premiere Pro, then consider the i9 over the i7;
Premiere Pro uses both CPU and GPU, which is why it throttles so badly, and compared to FCP or DaVinci Resolve, is an awful implementation by Adobe for i9 MBP.
Had people waited until there was more real world benchmark's, I doubt there would have been such a fuss.
Try out the 2018 15” MacBook Pro and identitical to my 2017 MacBook Pro in feel and touch! I thought Apple would make a change back to the previous keyboard. No such luck!
Because of the keyboard I'll stick with my 2015 MBP. This is the evidently the 3rd gen of the ButterFly keyboard - hopefully either next year or 2020 they will get it right and add more travel to the keys. I don't really think this is the MBP that they really wanted to make. The iPhone has been using LPDDR4 since the 6S. Apple is probably waiting on Intel to deliver their 10 nm process (Cannon Lake) chips which will hopefully allow Apple to redesign the MBP with more key travel. (Begging them not to make it thinner). If Intel has been stuck at 14 nm for 4 years they will probably be stuck on 10 nm for 4-6 years (they should code name them Dry Lake, Salt Lake, and Dead Sea Lake). Time for Apple to start producing their own A Serries chips in a laptop.
Comments
Worse - and this could easily be remedied in code, at home I might say siri please call my wife into my watch or iPhone, and it starts sirir, but then my homepod tells me that it cannot make calls
not the end of the world, but occasionally very inconvenient.
The wide-ranging variability seen in Geekbench results are often because of inaccurate platform descriptions and because many people run the app without remedying factors that lower the scores.
This all said, Like I said, I've asked Andrew to look into it, and he is. We are fully aware about what can impact benchmarks. We have a protocol for benchmarking which includes two minutes after a fresh reboot, no other user-executed processes running, and so forth. So yeah, we know something about it.
If there's a problem, we'll fix it. If you want to continue this conversation in a civil manner, I am all for it as I feel that you are a good forum member.
Perhaps the biggest contributor to wide-ranging scores is people not quitting extraneous apps and system extensions before launching the benchmark.
Our base model 2018 2.2GHz i7 processor earned 4,884 and 22,179 on the single and multicore Geekbench 4 tests respectively. The 20,179 is on the Geekbench 4 OpenCL test, not the single/multicore one. It looks like the "OpenCL compute test" designation is what got dropped somewhere along the way. Apologies for the omission.
Differences between how software is written for the relevant OS can have massive influence. In that Dave Lee video for example, the actual, real take home is how badly Premiere has been ported by Adobe onto Mac OS.
I have been hating that company since, oh, about 1997.
Apple wants to make elegant computers. And part of that is having devices which are quiet.
This is well known, after all the first Mac (supervised by Jobs) had no fan.
With these new MacBook Pro Intel CPUs, especially the i9, Apple is faced with thermal loads which don’t fit their “quiet” design parameters.
As discussed before about the i9, Apple could give the user the option to have the fan blasting at almost all times.
In the Windows world this kind of PC/laptop is well known, sounding like a plane taking off.
The Homepod will sometimes say it can’t handle a request … so why didn’t you let the phone take it, idiot!
Sounds like an Asus I used to own … before it burnt out.
The machines throttle to preserve the life of the components. This is something Apple has always done because they make machines for folk who do actual work, rather than folk who are obsessed with benchmarks. The only thing that matters is real world usage: is this, in general a faster machine than it is replacing?
But having read a few benchmarks, the usual suspects are demanding that Apple build them a machine they can barbecue their gonads on, as long as it doesn’t throttle. Sounds very much like the people who would rather the iPhone shutdown down completely rather than slow down.
I don’t give a toss about benchmarks. I take the machine, kick the tyres for a week, and if it improves my workflow, it stays.
One thing though: this machine has “stopgap” written all over it. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that Apple was going to continue with 2017 model until Intel delivered the real mobile chip, but they now have reason to believe that Intel will deliver later than they originally thought.
Bringing up the VESA mount (probably for the iMac Pro) at the top of a list criticizing Apple as a whole is immediately suspect as just spouting anti Apple bias. - My guess is that someone saw a YouTube video about the VESA iMac Pro mount and concluded that all of Apple should be condemned beginning with a very niche product.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MR3C2ZM/A/vesa-mount-adapter-kit-for-imac-pro-space-gray
- To me “screwing up royally” would refer to a common problem with a major product like the Pixel 2 XL having screen burn in issues. (Of course Google isn't going to be trashed by the majority of techies since Android has dominant marketshare.)
https://9to5google.com/2017/10/22/google-pixel-2-xl-burn-in/
But my bringing up a few user reports would still be anecdotal evidence (the experience of a few people in a total customer base of hundreds of millions). * To look at Apple’s performance as a whole against the competition (the only fair way imo), it is better to look at surveys.
- Apple has some of the highest rated smartphones.
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2017-full-service-smartphone-satisfaction-study
- Apple has some of the highest rated laptops/desktops.
http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147&catid=&Itemid=212&i=Personal+Computers
** I’m not denying that customers can have problems with Apple products. It is a fact that repair services have existed since the beginning of personal tech. - What I am saying is that overall Apple has not been screwing up royally.
Watch this video. If you aren't using Premiere Pro, then consider the i9 over the i7;
John Poole's twitter feed
https://twitter.com/jfpoole
geekbench blog
https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/
Bottom line.
Premiere Pro uses both CPU and GPU, which is why it throttles so badly, and compared to FCP or DaVinci Resolve, is an awful implementation by Adobe for i9 MBP.
Had people waited until there was more real world benchmark's, I doubt there would have been such a fuss.