Notebookcheck

Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 Laptop Review: A convincing Core i9-9880H and Radeon Pro 5500M powered multimedia laptop

Klaus Hinum, Andreas Osthoff, 👁 Andreas Osthoff (translated by Alex Alderson), 12/05/2019

A return to its origins. A thicker case, proven keyboard design and better cooling: That is the latest MacBook Pro in a nutshell. It seems that Apple has finally listened to its users and the press by optimising its largest high-end laptop for professionals. We put the flagship model through its paces in this detailed review.

Apple has bid goodbye to the fourth-generation MacBook Pro 15, after years of criticism about its butterfly keyboard. The company has replaced it with the MacBook Pro 16, a laptop that not only includes a larger display than its predecessor but also reverts to a conventional scissor-switch keyboard. Hopefully, the reliability issues of the fourth-generation MacBook Pro 15 should not afflict the MacBook Pro 16 too.

We have chosen to test the top-spec model, which comes with an Intel Core i9-9880H processor and an AMD Radeon Pro 5500M GPU that has 4 GB of GDDR6 VRAM. The machine also has 16 GB of dual-channel DDR4-2666 RAM and a 1 TB SSD. We would like to point out that our test device is a retail unit, rather than a press one with which Apple has provided us. While we purchased the device in Austria, Apple sells the configuration for US$2,799 in the US. We used the same device for our initial impressions article that we published last month too.

Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M (MacBook Pro 16 2019 Series)
Graphics adapter
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M - 4096 MB, GDDR6, Apple own
Memory
16384 MB 
, DDR4-2666
Display
16 inch 16:10, 3072 x 1920 pixel 226 PPI, APPA044, IPS, Retina, glossy: yes
Storage
Apple SSD AP1024 7171, 1024 GB 
,
Soundcard
Apple Audio Device
Connections
4 USB 3.1 Gen2, 0 USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20Gbps, 4 Thunderbolt, Audio Connections: Headset, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor
Networking
Broadcom 802.11ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 16.2 x 358 x 246 ( = 0.64 x 14.09 x 9.69 in)
Battery
99.8 Wh, 8790 mAh Lithium-Ion, 11.36 V Simplo Technology (Changshu) Inc. A2113
Operating System
Apple macOS 10.15 Catalina
Camera
Primary Camera: 0.9 MPix
Additional features
Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, 12 Months Warranty
Released
11/13/2019
Weight
2 kg ( = 70.55 oz / 4.41 pounds), Power Supply: 359 g ( = 12.66 oz / 0.79 pounds)
Price
3199 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

RatingDateModelWeightHeightSizeResolutionBest Price
90%12/2019Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
9880H, Radeon Pro 5500M
2 kg16.2 mm16"3072x1920
11/2019Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE
9750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
1.7 kg18.7 mm15.6"3840x2160
87%08/2019Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
9980HK, GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
2 kg17 mm15.6"3840x2160
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
9980HK, Radeon Pro Vega 20
15.4"x
88%06/2018Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
1.9 kg18.9 mm15.6"3840x2160
85%06/2019MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
9880H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
1.9 kg18 mm15.6"3840x2160

Case - A sumptuous and slightly thicker design

While the larger screen and higher-capacity battery necessitates using a thicker chassis, the basic design of the MacBook Pro has not changed. The MacBook Pro 16 looks so much like its predecessor, in our opinion, that it would be difficult to tell the two apart unless they are side-by-side. While the MacBook Pro 16 has slightly narrower display bezels than the MacBook Pro 15 too, Apple is still yet to adopt high screen-to-body ratios in its laptops. Apple continues to offer its largest MacBook Pro in Silver and Space Gray.

Furthermore, the MacBook Pro name remains synonymous with excellent craftsmanship and build quality. The aluminium case makes the MacBook Pro 16 feel premium, while its finish does not pick up fingerprints as easily as some plastic surfaces on its competitors do. We are looking at you, the Dell XPS 15 7590 and the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 2.

Overall, our review unit is sturdy, as we could not deform the chassis despite our best efforts. Likewise, the chassis is rigid, as is its display hinge. The display can be opened with one hand and also does not wobble when typing. The hinge allows the display to be opened to about 135° too, the same angle to which the most recent MacBook Pro 15 can be opened.

Apple continues to use proprietary Pentalobe screws on its latest MacBook Pro 16. These secure the bottom case to the chassis but are easy to remove with the right screwdriver. While we would recommend taking care when you remove the bottom case, there is hardly any point in doing so. Virtually all important components are either soldered to the logic board or are glued to the chassis. As we discussed recently, it is important to note that the bottom case is not only screwed and clipped to the chassis. Apple also hooks the bottom case to the chassis, so you must only pull the former away from the latter in a specific way. Apple has been doing this for a few years now, but it may be new for you if the MacBook Pro 16 is the first MacBook that you have bought in a few years. Incidentally, iFixit has already disassembled the new MacBook Pro and has awarded it 1/10 for repairability. The only positive is how simple it is to remove the trackpad.

Size Comparison

MBP16 vs MBP15
MBP16 vs MBP15

The MacBook Pro 16 is slightly larger than its predecessor in all aspects, as the graphic below demonstrates. Subjectively, we can only notice the differences between the two when we have one in each hand. While the MacBook Pro 16 is heavier than most of our comparison devices, it has a smaller footprint than all but the Dell XPS 15 7590.

365 mm / 14.4 inch 251 mm / 9.88 inch 18.9 mm / 0.744 inch 1.9 kg4.14 lbs361.8 mm / 14.2 inch 245.7 mm / 9.67 inch 18.7 mm / 0.736 inch 1.7 kg3.77 lbs357 mm / 14.1 inch 247 mm / 9.72 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.9 kg4.19 lbs358 mm / 14.1 inch 246 mm / 9.69 inch 16.2 mm / 0.638 inch 2 kg4.41 lbs357 mm / 14.1 inch 235 mm / 9.25 inch 17 mm / 0.669 inch 2 kg4.41 lbs349.3 mm / 13.8 inch 240.7 mm / 9.48 inch 15.5 mm / 0.61 inch 1.8 kg4.03 lbs

Connectivity - Sticking with Thunderbolt 3

Anyone who expected Apple to include a wider selection of ports along with reverting to a scissor keyboard will be left disappointed. The company continues to equip its MacBook Pros with just four Thunderbolt 3 ports and a 3.5 mm jack, a far cry from the volume and versatility of ports that its competitors offer. Thunderbolt 3 ports are versatile themselves, but you will need at least one USB Type-C dongle if you want to connect an HDMI cable, for example.

Right-hand side: 2x Thunderbolt 3 ports, 3.5 mm jack
Right-hand side: 2x Thunderbolt 3 ports, 3.5 mm jack
Left-hand side: 2x Thunderbolt 3 ports
Left-hand side: 2x Thunderbolt 3 ports

Communication - no Wi-Fi 6 in this year's MacBook Pro

Somewhat surprisingly, Apple has not equipped the MacBook Pro 16 with a Wi-Fi 6 modem (802.11ax). Instead, the company has opted for a Wi-Fi 5 Broadcom modem. Historically, MacBooks have offered some of the best Wi-Fi performance around, but the ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 2 embarrasses the MacBook Pro 16. A starting price of US$2,399 makes the lack of Wi-Fi 6 connectivity even more disappointing, in our opinion. Apple continues to refuse to offer WWAN connectivity even as an option too. Hence, you must tether your smartphone if you need a network connection with no Wi-Fi around. Doing so is not always practical, so the lack of WWAN connectivity feels like a missed opportunity.

The Wi-Fi module in our review unit did not convince us in our Wi-Fi tests, either. The MacBook Pro 16 dropped connection every time we ran iperf3 Client, for some reason. The first few seconds of the multiple tests that we ran show that the MacBook Pro 16 fluctuates between 600 and 800 Mb/s, putting it on par with its predecessor. However, the MacBook Pro 15 had no issues with running iperf3 Client on macOS Catalina.

We replicated this behaviour with the Linksys EA8500, Fritz! Box 7590 and Netgear Nighthawk AX12, thereby eliminating it as a router-compatibility issue. Our review unit maintained a stable and fast Wi-Fi 5 connection with our Fritz! Box 7590 router in daily use, though. We re-ran iperf3 Client on Windows 10 running in Boot Camp, the data from which we have provided below. Incidentally, the MacBook Pro 16 maintained a more stable connection when running on Windows 10 rather than macOS.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE
 
1431 (min: 1279, max: 1644) MBit/s ∼100% +75%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Broadcom 802.11ac
817 (min: 806, max: 821) MBit/s ∼57%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Killer Wi-Fi 6 AX1650x Wireless Network Adapter (200NGW)
674 MBit/s ∼47% -18%
Average of class Multimedia
  (44 - 1291, n=144)
508 MBit/s ∼35% -38%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE
 
1431 (min: 566, max: 1523) MBit/s ∼100% +146%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Killer Wi-Fi 6 AX1650x Wireless Network Adapter (200NGW)
644 MBit/s ∼45% +11%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Broadcom 802.11ac
581 (min: 533, max: 616) MBit/s ∼41%
Average of class Multimedia
  (46.1 - 1374, n=143)
489 MBit/s ∼34% -16%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø816 (806-821)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø582 (533-616)

Webcam - Still 720p, but improved microphones

Sadly, the MacBook Pro 16 has the same 720p FaceTime HD webcam as its predecessor. While it is good enough for undemanding video calls, recent iPhones offer superior front-facing cameras than the MacBook Pro 16 does. Conversely, Apple has upgraded the microphones compared to those it used in the MacBook Pro 15, which it dubs as studio worthy. We would not go that far, but they are good enough to refrain from reaching for headphones for most tasks.

A cropped photo of our test chart
A cropped photo of our test chart
The entire view of our test chart
The entire view of our test chart
ColorChecker Photo
15.8 ∆E
13.1 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
14.8 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
13.4 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
14.2 ∆E
6 ∆E
14.4 ∆E
17.3 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
16.7 ∆E
22.5 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
15 ∆E
15.5 ∆E
2.3 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
15.9 ∆E
17.6 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
ColorChecker Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M: 12.63 ∆E min: 2.33 - max: 22.49 ∆E
No screenshots found ()

Warranty

Apple includes a one-year limited warranty with the MacBook Pro 16. The warranty coverage extends to telephone support even for software problems, but other OEMs offer longer warranties with comparable laptops. Apple sells AppleCare for the MacBook Pro 16 too should you want longer warranty coverage. The extended warranty lasts for three years and costs US$449, which is absurdly expensive.

Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies & Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices - A new MacBook Pro with an old keyboard

Keyboard

The MacBook Pro 16 marks the first time that Apple has released a MacBook without a butterfly keyboard since it introduced the mechanism about four years ago. This is rather unsurprising considering the volume of negative headlines and longevity issues that the butterfly mechanism received.

Apple has actually done a u-turn and has returned in principal to the keyboard it used in the Mid 2015 MacBook Pro 15. The scissor keyboard in the MacBook Pro 16 has about 1.2 mm of travel, which should please those who had trouble typing on the butterfly keyboard. The scissor keyboard is quieter than the butterfly mechanism too. Overall, we have little to complain about here. Apple has adjusted the shape of the arrow keys too, much to our approval. While the keys are smaller than the ones in the MacBook Pro 15, they are easier to use when touch typing, in our opinion. Contrary to other reports, we had no issues with getting used to scissor keyboards again, especially the precise feedback that the keys offer. Incidentally, we achieved the same words per minute (WPM) regardless of whether we are typing on the MacBook Pro 16 or MacBook Pro 15.

The MacBook Pro 16 retains the Touch Bar that its predecessors have featured, although this has also received a redesign. The Touch Bar now no longer sits flush with the top case, while it is a little narrower than the one found in the MacBook Pro 15 too. Moreover, there is now a dedicated escape key and power button. The latter supports Touch ID for biometric authentication and worked perfectly during our tests. The fingerprint scanner can be used not only for unlocking the device but also for passwords and Apple Pay.

The keyboard is backlit too, as all MacBook keyboards have been for well over a decade. Apple continues to offer better backlighting than many of its competitors, in our opinion. While the MacBook Pro 16 does not offer the same degree of backlight customisation as gaming laptops and their RGB keyboards do, it has finer controls than comparable Windows laptops do, which typically only offer two brightness levels. You will rarely find the need to adjust the keyboard backlight manually either, as the built-in brightness sensor reacts well to changing ambient light. The backlight uses pulse-width modulation (PWM) to adjust luminosity though, as the Touch Bar and display do too. PWM can cause health issues like eyestrain and headaches for some people, for reference.

Trackpad

Trackpads in Windows laptops have improved drastically over the last few years, but they are still playing catch up to those in modern MacBooks. The Force Touch glass trackpad remains the standard among laptops, with its size and accuracy unrivalled by what other OEMs currently offer. Multi-finger gestures are easy to pull off, as is moving the mouse with one finger. Overall, we have nothing to complain about here, nor do we about the Force Touch motor that provides haptic feedback. The motor works perfectly even into the corners of the trackpad and is something that Windows OEMs are still yet to match.

Display - A glorious 16-inch Retina display

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array
PWM: Touch Bar
PWM: Touch Bar

One of the most obvious changes with the new MacBook Pro is its display. The new 16-inch panel is IPS rather than OLED and still carries the company's Retina branding. The 226 PPI pixel density of the 3072x1920 panel is lower than those of comparable 4K screens though, like those in the Dell XPS 15 7590 and Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 2. Apple continues to only offer a single display variant with its MacBook Pro series, which is neither capable of high refresh rates nor HDR.

Apple advertises the MacBook Pro 16 as having a 500 cd/m² 16-inch display, a claim that is only true at the centre of our review unit's display according to X-Rite i1Pro 2. The software records the panel as being 86% evenly lit, which results in an average maximum luminosity of 477 cd/m². While the latter is higher than the luminosities that most of our comparison devices achieved in the same tests, the former could be better. The display has an acceptable black value too, which we measured at 0.39 cd/m². None of our comparison devices achieve drastically lower black values other than the Dell XPS 15 7590, but there are plenty of other laptops that are better than the MacBook Pro 16 in this regard. This applies to our review unit's contrast ratio of 1,331:1 too. Many Windows laptops have caught up to Apple here, while the MacBook Pro 16 broadly matched the values that its predecessor achieved.

Subjectively, the display in our review unit has excellent image quality with no visible backlight bleeding. We cannot detect classic PWM either, by which we mean square wave signals, although the backlight flickers at 131 kHz. However, this frequency is so high, and it varies so slightly when changing brightness levels, that few people should be affected by it. We suspect that Apple uses this method of regulating luminosity to reduce power consumption.

On the other hand, the Touch Bar may cause eyestrain and headaches for some people. The Touch Bar flickers at an OLED-typical 240 Hz, a PWM frequency that we have seen many smartphones also use. While there is a risk that the Touch Bar could affect some people, most will spend so little time looking at it that even those who are PWM sensitive should suffer no long-term ill-effects.

448
cd/m²
475
cd/m²
473
cd/m²
480
cd/m²
519
cd/m²
485
cd/m²
464
cd/m²
490
cd/m²
463
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
APPA044
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 519 cd/m² Average: 477.4 cd/m² Minimum: 5.4 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 519 cd/m²
Contrast: 1331:1 (Black: 0.39 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.28 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6, calibrated: 0.86
ΔE Greyscale 0.9 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
100% sRGB (Calman 2D) 78% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2145
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
APPA044, IPS, 3072x1920, 16
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Samsung 156WR04, SDCA029, OLED, 3840x2160, 15.6
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE
3840x2160, 15.6
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
APPA040, IPS, 2880x1800, 15.4
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
AU Optronics B156ZAN03.1, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
AU Optronics AUO41EB, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6
Response Times
30%
12%
6%
26%
7%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
52.4 (23.9, 28.5)
2.3 (1.1, 1.2)
96%
46.4 (22, 24.4)
11%
43.2 (20.4, 22.8)
18%
44 (22, 22)
16%
51 (24, 27)
3%
Response Time Black / White *
34.9 (17.8, 17.1)
2.4 (1.1, 1.3)
93%
30.4 (17.2, 13.2)
13%
31.2 (16.4, 14.8)
11%
22.8 (12, 10.8)
35%
31 (18, 13)
11%
PWM Frequency
131700
59.52 (100)
-100%
117000 (75, 150)
-11%
Screen
-68%
-85%
9%
-69%
-66%
Brightness middle
519
421.2
-19%
464
-11%
520
0%
357.6
-31%
445
-14%
Brightness
477
417
-13%
448
-6%
492
3%
350
-27%
462
-3%
Brightness Distribution
86
94
9%
90
5%
88
2%
85
-1%
83
-3%
Black Level *
0.39
0.36
8%
0.39
-0%
0.35
10%
0.5
-28%
Contrast
1331
1289
-3%
1333
0%
1022
-23%
890
-33%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.28
6.06
-166%
4.2
-84%
1.2
47%
4.12
-81%
4.75
-108%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.54
11.89
-82%
11.4
-74%
2.3
65%
9.91
-52%
7.79
-19%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
0.86
0.8
7%
4.23
-392%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
0.9
2.8
-211%
7.2
-700%
1.3
-44%
1.8
-100%
4.49
-399%
Gamma
2145 0%
2.15 102%
2.17 101%
2.18 101%
2.17 101%
2.49 88%
CCT
6572 99%
6235 104%
6345 102%
6738 96%
6613 98%
7374 88%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
78
81
4%
85.2
9%
87.5
12%
87
12%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.6
99
100
100
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-19% / -39%
-37% / -69%
8% / 8%
-22% / -53%
-30% / -53%

* ... smaller is better

Contrary to its Windows competitors, Apple has been using P3 as the target colour space of its MacBook displays for several years. Correspondingly, we conducted our colour accuracy tests using the P3 colour space rather than AdobeRGB or sRGB. CalMAN Ultimate and our X-Rite i1 Pro2 spectrophotometer determine that Apple is still factory calibrating displays. However, the panel in our MacBook Pro 16 review unit is not as accurate as the display in the MacBook Pro 15 that we tested, which had only minor DeltaE deviations. While the MacBook Pro 16 has impressively low greyscale deviations, its brown and orange deviations are higher than what we would have expected.

CalMAN: Grayscale - uncalibrated (P3 target colour space)
CalMAN: Grayscale - uncalibrated (P3 target colour space)
CalMAN: ColorChecker - uncalibrated (P3 target colour space)
CalMAN: ColorChecker - uncalibrated (P3 target colour space)
CalMAN: Grayscale - calibrated (P3 target colour space)
CalMAN: Grayscale - calibrated (P3 target colour space)
CalMAN: Colorchecker - calibrated (P3 target colour space)
CalMAN: Colorchecker - calibrated (P3 target colour space)

Additional calibration helped minimise deviations, with all metrics being better than the ideal value of three. You can find our calibrated ICC file in the box above our comparison table should you wish to use it. The display also completely covers the P3 and sRGB colour spaces, while its AdobeRGB coverage stands at 88.8%. Overall, the MacBook Pro 16 is colour accurate enough for professional image and video-editing.

100% sRGB colour-space coverage (2D CalMAN intersection)
100% sRGB colour-space coverage (2D CalMAN intersection)
99.4% P3 colour-space coverage (2D CalMAN intersection)
99.4% P3 colour-space coverage (2D CalMAN intersection)
88.8% AdobeRGB colour-space coverage (2D CalMAN intersection)
88.8% AdobeRGB colour-space coverage (2D CalMAN intersection)

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
34.9 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17.8 ms rise
↘ 17.1 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 90 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
52.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23.9 ms rise
↘ 28.5 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 87 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39.4 ms).

As we mentioned earlier, the MacBook Pro 16 flickers consistently at 131 kHz. While this could theoretically cause issues for those who are PWM sensitive, the frequency should be high enough not to affect most people's eyes. In short, the MacBook Pro 16 should not cause headaches or eyestrain after prolonged use.

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 131700 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 131700 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 131700 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9338 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The IPS panel also has stable viewing angles, as the montage below demonstrates. Brightness drops off slightly at acute angles, but not worryingly so. Meanwhile, we encountered no colour distortion, making the MacBook Pro 16 readable from almost any angle.

Performance - A powerful mix of Navi and Coffee Lake

The MacBook Pro 16 is a very powerful multimedia laptop, irrespective of the version that you buy. Apple offers the device with hexa- or octa-core Coffee Lake processors, along with a choice between three AMD Radeon Pro GPUs. Strictly speaking it is only two, but the Radeon Pro 5500M comes in 4 GB and 8 GB variants. You can configure the MacBook Pro 16 with up to 64 GB of DDR4-2666 RAM and an 8 TB SSD too.

While we ran most of our benchmarks on macOS, we also ran them on Windows 10 using Boot Camp for the sake of comparability. Apple has optimised most drivers well for Windows 10 Boot Camp, making it a good alternative to macOS in most respects. However, you must put up with the dGPU being permanently enabled, which will impact battery life, while some benchmark results are lower than what they are in macOS for some reason.

Latencies Idle Win 10
Latencies Idle Win 10
Latencies Youtube and surfing Win 10
Latencies Youtube and surfing Win 10
GPU-Z Render Test
GPU-Z Render Test
Radeon Pro Driver Bootcamp
Radeon Pro Driver Bootcamp
Extreme load
Extreme load
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
HWInfo
HWInfo

Processor

The Core i9-9880H powers our review unit, an octa-core processor that we have already benchmarked in the most recent MacBook Pro 15. Intel bases the chip on its Coffee Lake architecture, which it manufacturers on a 14 nm process and first introduced in Q3 2017. The Core i9-9880H supports Intel Hyper-Threading, allowing the processor to execute up to 16 threads simultaneously, and it can clock from 2.3 to 4.8 GHz. The CPU can only achieve its peak clock speeds by using Thermal Velocity Boost, though.

The level at which a processor performs depends on the quality of the cooling system with which OEMs pair it. The MacBook Pro 16 has a more robust cooling system than those which Apple included in its predecessors, which explains why it can achieve and maintain higher benchmark scores than the most recent MacBook Pro 15 can. The MacBook Pro 16 and its Core i9-9880H can even outperform the more powerful Core i9-9980HK in this year's MacBook Pro 15, underlining the superiority of the former's cooling system. Incidentally, our review unit achieved substantially better scores in Cinebench R15 Multi 64Bit when running macOS than Windows 10.

01020304050607080901001101201301401501601701801902002102202302402502602702802903003103203303403503603703803904004104204304404504604704804905005105205305405505605705805906006106206306406506606706806907007107207307407507607707807908008108208308408508608708808909009109209309409509609709809901000101010201030104010501060107010801090110011101120113011401150116011701180119012001210122012301240125012601270128012901300131013201330134013501360137013801390140014101420143014401450146014701480149015001510152015301540155015601570158015901600161016201630164016501660167016801690Tooltip
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M Intel Core i9-9880H, Intel Core i9-9880H; macOS 10.15.1: Ø1407 (1386-1435)
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M Intel Core i9-9880H, Intel Core i9-9880H; Win 10: Ø1296 (1268.87-1362.31)
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 16 Intel Core i9-9880H, Intel Core i9-9880H: Ø1238 (1170.34-1317.35)
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20 Intel Core i9-9980HK, Intel Core i9-9980HK: Ø1308 (1257.47-1327.02)
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV Intel Core i9-9980HK, Intel Core i9-9980HK: Ø1573 (1526.78-1689.97)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK
201 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Intel Core i9-9980HK
  (181 - 213, n=9)
198 Points ∼99% +8%
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng
Intel Core i9-9880H
197 Points ∼98% +7%
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
Intel Core i9-9880H
196 Points ∼98% +7%
Dell Precision 5540
Intel Core i9-9980HK
193 Points ∼96% +5%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE
Intel Core i7-9750H
191 Points ∼95% +4%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Intel Core i9-9980HK
190 Points ∼95% +3%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
189 Points ∼94% +3%
Average Intel Core i9-9880H
  (181 - 197, n=9)
189 Points ∼94% +3%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H
184 Points ∼92%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H
184 Points ∼92% 0%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
Intel Core i9-9880H
183 Points ∼91% -1%
Average Intel Core i7-9750H
  (170 - 194, n=64)
183 Points ∼91% -1%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 16
Intel Core i9-9880H
181 Points ∼90% -2%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
Intel Core i9-9980HK
181 Points ∼90% -2%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H
177 Points ∼88% -4%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2017 (2.9 GHz, 560)
Intel Core i7-7820HQ
160 Points ∼80% -13%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.7 GHz, 455)
Intel Core i7-6820HQ
154 Points ∼77% -16%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450)
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
141 Points ∼70% -23%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
AMD Ryzen 5 3580U
139 Points ∼69% -24%
Average of class Multimedia
  (36 - 201, n=373)
129 Points ∼64% -30%
CPU Multi 64Bit
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
1721 Points ∼100% +20%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Intel Core i9-9980HK
1641 Points ∼95% +14%
Average Intel Core i9-9980HK
  (1305 - 1930, n=10)
1613 Points ∼94% +12%
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
Intel Core i9-9880H
1545 Points ∼90% +8%
Average Intel Core i9-9880H
  (1317 - 1721, n=9)
1492 Points ∼87% +4%
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng
Intel Core i9-9880H
1450 Points ∼84% +1%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H
1435 (min: 1401, max: 1435) Points ∼83%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H
1362 (min: 1268.87, max: 1362.31) Points ∼79% -5%
Dell Precision 5540
Intel Core i9-9980HK
1407 (min: 1126.13, max: 1407) Points ∼82% -2%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
Intel Core i9-9880H
1401 Points ∼81% -2%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
Intel Core i9-9980HK
1327 Points ∼77% -8%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 16
Intel Core i9-9880H
1317 Points ∼77% -8%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK
1305 (min: 1090.6, max: 1369.3, 99th percentile: 1367.66) Points ∼76% -9%
Average Intel Core i7-9750H
  (964 - 1306, n=66)
1182 Points ∼69% -18%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H
1064 Points ∼62% -26%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H
1057 Points ∼61% -26%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H
953 Points ∼55% -34%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H
1057 Points ∼61% -26%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i7 555X
 
1047 Points ∼61% -27%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i7 555X
 
1029 Points ∼60% -28%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE
Intel Core i7-9750H
979 (min: 967.16, max: 1074.4) Points ∼57% -32%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2017 (2.9 GHz, 560)
Intel Core i7-7820HQ
757 Points ∼44% -47%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2017 (2.9 GHz, 560)
Intel Core i7-7820HQ
630 Points ∼37% -56%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.7 GHz, 455)
Intel Core i7-6820HQ
704 Points ∼41% -51%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
AMD Ryzen 5 3580U
693 Points ∼40% -52%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450)
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
666 Points ∼39% -54%
Average of class Multimedia
  (73 - 1550, n=389)
494 Points ∼29% -66%
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
1362 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
184 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
199 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
98 %
Help

System Performance

While the MacBook Pro 16 tops all our PCMark benchmark tables, its dominance is even more remarkable than upon first glance. We had to rely on results achieved in Windows 10 here, so we are looking at how the MacBook Pro 16 compares against laptops running Windows 10 natively. Considering the performance gap between macOS and Windows 10 that we observed in our CPU benchmarks, the MacBook Pro 16 should have even better system performance when running macOS than our Windows 10 results would suggest.

PCMark 10 - Score
Average Intel Core i9-9880H
  (5211 - 6558, n=6)
5801 Points ∼100% +5%
Average Intel Core i9-9980HK
  (4305 - 7082, n=8)
5765 Points ∼99% +5%
Average Intel Core i7-9750H
  (4885 - 6453, n=57)
5654 Points ∼97% +3%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M, 9880H, Apple SSD AP1024 7171
5500 Points ∼95%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
5469 Points ∼94% -1%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 16
Radeon Pro Vega 16, 9880H
5407 Points ∼93% -2%
Dell Precision 5540
Quadro T2000 Max-Q, 9980HK, SK hynix PC400 512 GB
5296 Points ∼91% -4%
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9880H, 2x Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ (RAID 0)
5211 Points ∼90% -5%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
Radeon Pro Vega 20, 9980HK
4305 Points ∼74% -22%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
Vega 9, 3580U, SK hynix BC501 HFM256GDGTNG
4056 Points ∼70% -26%
Average of class Multimedia
  (1144 - 5500, n=104)
3992 Points ∼69% -27%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Average Intel Core i7-9750H
  (4450 - 6035, n=47)
5526 Points ∼100% +15%
Average Intel Core i9-9880H
  (4482 - 6004, n=4)
5304 Points ∼96% +10%
Average Intel Core i9-9980HK
  (4558 - 6524, n=7)
5005 Points ∼91% +4%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M, 9880H, Apple SSD AP1024 7171
4812 Points ∼87%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
4762 Points ∼86% -1%
Dell Precision 5540
Quadro T2000 Max-Q, 9980HK, SK hynix PC400 512 GB
4558 Points ∼82% -5%
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9880H, 2x Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ (RAID 0)
4482 Points ∼81% -7%
Average of class Multimedia
  (2213 - 5651, n=286)
4309 Points ∼78% -10%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
Vega 9, 3580U, SK hynix BC501 HFM256GDGTNG
4246 Points ∼77% -12%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M, 9880H, Apple SSD AP1024 7171
4900 Points ∼100%
Average Intel Core i7-9750H
  (3533 - 5661, n=46)
4449 Points ∼91% -9%
Average Intel Core i9-9880H
  (3505 - 4900, n=4)
4383 Points ∼89% -11%
Average Intel Core i9-9980HK
  (3684 - 5731, n=7)
4154 Points ∼85% -15%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
3799 Points ∼78% -22%
Dell Precision 5540
Quadro T2000 Max-Q, 9980HK, SK hynix PC400 512 GB
3684 Points ∼75% -25%
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9880H, 2x Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ (RAID 0)
3505 Points ∼72% -28%
Average of class Multimedia
  (1371 - 4900, n=307)
3389 Points ∼69% -31%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
Vega 9, 3580U, SK hynix BC501 HFM256GDGTNG
3348 Points ∼68% -32%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4900 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
7359 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4812 points
Help

Storage Devices

2,800 MB/s read and write speeds on macOS
2,800 MB/s read and write speeds on macOS
AS SSD compression benchmark
AS SSD compression benchmark

Apple has been equipping MacBooks with in-house SSDs for several years now, which it pairs with its T2 security chip. The company solders both to the logic board, which means replacing the latter if either fail.

The 1 TB drive in our review unit achieved 2,800 MB/s transfer speeds on macOS 10.15.1, according to Blackmagic Disk Speed Test. The AP1024 can top this in Windows depending on the benchmarking tool used, though. However, the drive falls short of the class average in some areas. 4K transfer speeds with a queue depth of 1 are below-average, for instance, while it performed surprisingly weakly in the PCMark 8 Storage Test too. Overall, other drives like the Samsung 970 Pro edge out the AP1024 on performance. The differences are marginal though and will be hardly noticeable in daily use, if at all.

Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Apple SSD AP1024 7171
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
SK hynix BC501 HFM256GDGTNG
Dell Precision 5540
SK hynix PC400 512 GB
Gigabyte Aero 17 XA RP77
Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW512G8
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
Samsung SSD 970 Pro 512GB
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6
30%
-11%
8%
51%
58%
Write 4K
55.54
104.3
88%
99.04
78%
98
76%
169.6
205%
153
175%
Read 4K
16.21
45.23
179%
35.63
120%
41.25
154%
57.97
258%
60.54
273%
Write Seq
1959.24
1729
-12%
706.2
-64%
1295
-34%
1516
-23%
1938
-1%
Read Seq
1762.83
1861
6%
1044
-41%
1441
-18%
2362
34%
1932
10%
Write 4K Q32T1
398.51
509.2
28%
326.6
-18%
429.2
8%
481.8
21%
482.5
21%
Read 4K Q32T1
648.05
388.5
-40%
270
-58%
400.1
-38%
505.8
-22%
593.9
-8%
Write Seq Q32T1
2726.7
2813
3%
819.6
-70%
1366
-50%
1530
-44%
2324
-15%
Read Seq Q32T1
3241.6
2906
-10%
2028
-37%
2201
-32%
2645
-18%
3539
9%
AS SSD
34%
-26%
8%
-17%
21%
Copy Game MB/s
1135
1823.85
61%
387.44
-66%
1262.9
11%
1582.57
39%
Copy Program MB/s
584
983.98
68%
200.49
-66%
414.33
-29%
665.8
14%
Copy ISO MB/s
1995
3182.39
60%
827.96
-58%
946.41
-53%
2704.82
36%
Score Total
4317
3638
-16%
1434
-67%
2781
-36%
1871
-57%
4813
11%
Score Write
2018
1693
-16%
488
-76%
1048
-48%
793
-61%
2435
21%
Score Read
1536
1294
-16%
639
-58%
1170
-24%
718
-53%
1581
3%
Access Time Write *
0.095
0.039
59%
0.11
-16%
0.053
44%
0.227
-139%
0.09
5%
Access Time Read *
0.122
0.05
59%
0.056
54%
0.074
39%
0.05
59%
0.101
17%
4K-64 Write
1748.84
1456.13
-17%
339.93
-81%
862.73
-51%
533.86
-69%
2155.64
23%
4K-64 Read
1266.78
1077.98
-15%
492.01
-61%
956.22
-25%
504.34
-60%
1317.13
4%
4K Write
39.88
98.3
146%
96.76
143%
92.08
131%
107.65
170%
61.3
54%
4K Read
15.85
43.25
173%
34.98
121%
39.1
147%
32.68
106%
28.65
81%
Seq Write
2288.6
1386.27
-39%
514.48
-78%
929.99
-59%
1512.07
-34%
2184.22
-5%
Seq Read
2531.3
1723.09
-32%
1122.12
-56%
1742.71
-31%
1811.67
-28%
2352.01
-7%
PCMark 8
Storage Score v2
1818
Total Average (Program / Settings)
32% / 33%
-19% / -21%
8% / 8%
17% / 8%
40% / 35%

* ... smaller is better

Apple SSD AP1024 7171
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 3241.6 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 2726.7 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 648.05 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 398.51 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1762.83 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 1959.24 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 16.21 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 55.54 MB/s

Graphics Card

GPU performance is one of the biggest advantages that the MacBook Pro 16 has over its predecessors. The machine comes with either a Radeon Pro 5300M or a Radeon Pro 5500M, although Apple offers the latter in 4 and 8 GB variants. TSMC manufactures both GPUs on its modern 7 nm process under instruction from AMD. The Radeon Pro models are based on the same Navi architectures as their Radeon RX counterparts, but they have two additional Compute Units (CUs) than the latter has. However, the Radeon Pro cards run at lower clock speeds and at lower TDPs than their Radeon RX equivalents do.

While the Radeon Pro 5500M and Radeon RX 5500M share similar names, the former often finished well short of the latter in synthetic GPU benchmarks. Clearly, the higher TDP and clock speeds of the Radeon RX 5500M can compensate against the two additional CUs that the Radeon Pro 5500M has. The latter generally outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, though.

The Radeon Pro 5500M also has the edge over the Radeon Pro Vega 20 and Radeon Pro 560X found in its 15-inch predecessors. We lack detailed Windows 10 benchmark results for the Radeon Pro Vega 16 and Radeon Pro Vega 20. However, the latter is about 20% slower than the Radeon Pro 5500M in Unigine Valley 1.0, which should give you an idea of the performance advantage that Navi has over the Vega architecture.

Performance Rating
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
96.2 pt ∼96%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
94.2 pt ∼94%
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9880H
89.8 pt ∼90%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
 
81.9 pt ∼82%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
69.3 pt ∼69%
unknown 5300M laptop
AMD Radeon RX 5300M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
66.2 pt ∼66%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
65.8 pt ∼66%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
 
59.8 pt ∼60%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
54.6 pt ∼55%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, Intel Core i9-9980HK
54.1 pt ∼54%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
50.9 pt ∼51%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i9-8950HK
42.5 pt ∼43%
Average of class Multimedia
 
19.6 pt ∼20%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
AMD Radeon RX Vega 9, AMD Ryzen 5 3580U
18.4 pt ∼18%
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9880H
20837 Points ∼100% +42%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (18610 - 20940, n=18)
19913 Points ∼96% +35%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
19666 Points ∼94% +34%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
17668 Points ∼85% +20%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (17010 - 18493, n=5)
17479 Points ∼84% +19%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
14725 Points ∼71%
unknown 5300M laptop
AMD Radeon RX 5300M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
14265 Points ∼68% -3%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (12388 - 13575, n=17)
13210 Points ∼63% -10%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, Intel Core i9-9980HK
12474 Points ∼60% -15%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
12388 Points ∼59% -16%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
11468 Points ∼55% -22%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i9-8950HK
8854 Points ∼42% -40%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
AMD Radeon RX Vega 9, AMD Ryzen 5 3580U
4380 Points ∼21% -70%
Average of class Multimedia
  (352 - 20837, n=640)
3024 Points ∼15% -79%
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
5738 Points ∼100% +71%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (5335 - 5931, n=16)
5615 Points ∼98% +67%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (4867 - 5440, n=5)
5088 Points ∼89% +51%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
4000 Points ∼70% +19%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (3353 - 3700, n=16)
3508 Points ∼61% +4%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
3364 Points ∼59%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
3353 Points ∼58% 0%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
3066 Points ∼53% -9%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, Intel Core i9-9980HK
2633 Points ∼46% -22%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i9-8950HK
2075 Points ∼36% -38%
Average of class Multimedia
  (142 - 4734, n=63)
1601 Points ∼28% -52%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
AMD Radeon RX Vega 9, AMD Ryzen 5 3580U
872 Points ∼15% -74%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9880H
16100 Points ∼100% +55%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
14768 Points ∼92% +42%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (14186 - 15482, n=18)
14726 Points ∼91% +42%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (12903 - 13362, n=4)
13202 Points ∼82% +27%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
11754 Points ∼73% +13%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
10399 Points ∼65%
unknown 5300M laptop
AMD Radeon RX 5300M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
10306 Points ∼64% -1%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (8532 - 9536, n=17)
9264 Points ∼58% -11%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, Intel Core i9-9980HK
9108 Points ∼57% -12%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
8532 Points ∼53% -18%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
8107 Points ∼50% -22%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i9-8950HK
7291 Points ∼45% -30%
Average of class Multimedia
  (337 - 16100, n=414)
2913 Points ∼18% -72%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
AMD Radeon RX Vega 9, AMD Ryzen 5 3580U
2789 Points ∼17% -73%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (70315 - 103428, n=14)
95080 Points ∼100% +45%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
86229 Points ∼91% +31%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (44557 - 89505, n=4)
69498 Points ∼73% +6%
MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9880H
65859 Points ∼69% 0%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
65776 Points ∼69%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (38016 - 61286, n=12)
54186 Points ∼57% -18%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
47166 Points ∼50% -28%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i9-9980HK
45246 Points ∼48% -31%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i9-8950HK
43721 Points ∼46% -34%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
42409 Points ∼45% -36%
Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U
AMD Radeon RX Vega 9, AMD Ryzen 5 3580U
19255 Points ∼20% -71%
Average of class Multimedia
  (2468 - 77755, n=419)
17096 Points ∼18% -74%
Unigine Valley 1.0 - 1920x1080 Extreme HD Preset OpenGL AA:x8
Apple iMac Pro
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, Intel Xeon W-2145
58.4 fps ∼100% +28%
Apple iMac Pro
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, Intel Xeon W-2145
48.9 fps ∼84% +7%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
45.6 (min: 22, max: 82) fps ∼78%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
 
39.7 fps ∼68% -13%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, Intel Core i9-9980HK
34.9 fps ∼60% -23%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.9 GHz, Vega 20)
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, Intel Core i9-8950HK
34 fps ∼58% -25%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.9 GHz, Vega 20)
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, Intel Core i9-8950HK
25.7 fps ∼44% -44%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
AMD Radeon Pro 560X, Intel Core i7-8850H
21.4 (min: 12.5, max: 34) fps ∼37% -53%
Average of class Multimedia
  (6.2 - 45.6, n=15)
19.3 fps ∼33% -58%
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2018 Touchbar i5
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655, Intel Core i5-8259U
12.2 fps ∼21% -73%
3DMark 06 Standard
34321 points
3DMark 11 Performance
14097 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
30690 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
9196 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
3629 points
Help

SpecViewPerf 13

Performance Rating
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
99.5 pt ∼100%
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
98.3 pt ∼98%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
97.5 pt ∼98%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
75.4 pt ∼75%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
55.9 pt ∼56%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
53 pt ∼53%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
52.5 pt ∼53%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
47.3 pt ∼47%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
38.9 pt ∼39%
SPECviewperf 13
Solidworks (sw-04)
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
129.58 fps ∼100% +40%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
125.44 fps ∼97% +36%
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
120.9 fps ∼93% +31%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
109.62 fps ∼85% +19%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
97.2 fps ∼75% +5%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
92.3 fps ∼71%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
89.18 fps ∼69% -3%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
65.1 fps ∼50% -29%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
54.52 fps ∼42% -41%
Siemens NX (snx-03)
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
286.67 fps ∼100% +83%
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
280.2 fps ∼98% +78%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
271.14 fps ∼95% +73%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
160.56 fps ∼56% +2%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
157 fps ∼55%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
143.82 fps ∼50% -8%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
127.83 fps ∼45% -19%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
14.81 fps ∼5% -91%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
11.81 fps ∼4% -92%
Showcase (showcase-02)
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
94.6 fps ∼100% +52%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
94.04 fps ∼99% +51%
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
93.44 fps ∼99% +50%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
74.61 fps ∼79% +20%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
73.33 fps ∼78% +18%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
62.4 fps ∼66%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
41.19 fps ∼44% -34%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
37.56 fps ∼40% -40%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
35.27 fps ∼37% -43%
Medical (medical-02)
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
79.3 fps ∼100% +98%
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
79.03 fps ∼100% +97%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
73.2 fps ∼92% +83%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
53.87 fps ∼68% +34%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
41.71 fps ∼53% +4%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
40.07 fps ∼51%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
38.99 fps ∼49% -3%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
33.45 fps ∼42% -17%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
28.08 fps ∼35% -30%
Maya (maya-05)
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
207.89 fps ∼100% +65%
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
204.8 fps ∼99% +63%
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
203.6 fps ∼98% +62%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
167.15 fps ∼80% +33%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
155.35 fps ∼75% +23%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
126 fps ∼61%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
120.44 fps ∼58% -4%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
105.69 fps ∼51% -16%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
101.04 fps ∼49% -20%
Energy (energy-02)
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
36.5 fps ∼100% +114%
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
36.15 fps ∼99% +112%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
36.03 fps ∼99% +111%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
25.76 fps ∼71% +51%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
17.04 fps ∼47%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
14.87 fps ∼41% -13%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
12 fps ∼33% -30%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
10.81 fps ∼30% -37%
Creo (creo-02)
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
212.28 fps ∼100% +128%
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
211.4 fps ∼100% +127%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
207.97 fps ∼98% +123%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
160.6 fps ∼76% +73%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
120.7 fps ∼57% +30%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
109.55 fps ∼52% +18%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
99.93 fps ∼47% +7%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
93.1 fps ∼44%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
85.64 fps ∼40% -8%
Catia (catia-05)
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
215.72 fps ∼100% +73%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
212.62 fps ∼99% +70%
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
207.8 fps ∼96% +66%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
185.84 fps ∼86% +49%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
134.64 fps ∼62% +8%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
125 fps ∼58%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
121.33 fps ∼56% -3%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
87.39 fps ∼41% -30%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
61.19 fps ∼28% -51%
3ds Max (3dsmax-06)
Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q, Intel Core i7-9750H
174.2 fps ∼100% +96%
MSI WS75 9TL-636
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
173.01 fps ∼99% +94%
Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
172.74 fps ∼99% +94%
Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
149.42 fps ∼86% +68%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9750H
142.47 fps ∼82% +60%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), Intel Core i5-9300H
103.01 fps ∼59% +16%
Dell Precision 5540
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q, Intel Core i9-9980HK
93.32 fps ∼54% +5%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, Intel Core i9-9880H
89 fps ∼51%
Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (Laptop), Intel Core i7-9850H
83.89 fps ∼48% -6%

Gaming Performance

We have mainly focussed on gaming performance via Boot Camp as Windows 10 offers a superior selection of games from which to benchmark than macOS. Windows 10 also offers better gaming performance than macOS does. Expectedly, the Radeon Pro 5500M cannot match the performance that the Radeon RX 5500M offers, but it does generally outperform the GeForce GTX 1650 in games running at ultra graphics. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q proved too much for the Radeon Pro 5500M, though.

Performance Rating
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
100 pt ∼100%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
 
87.6 pt ∼88%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
73.5 pt ∼74%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
64.1 pt ∼64%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
 
62.9 pt ∼63%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
57.5 pt ∼58%
Average of class Multimedia
 
38.1 pt ∼38%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
32.6 pt ∼33%
Ghost Recon Breakpoint - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:T
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
55 fps ∼100% +57%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
 
48 fps ∼87% +37%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
35 (min: 26, max: 56) fps ∼64%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (30 - 37, n=2)
33.5 fps ∼61% -4%
Average of class Multimedia
  (18 - 35, n=2)
26.5 fps ∼48% -24%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
26 fps ∼47% -26%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
18 (min: 13, max: 27) fps ∼33% -49%
Borderlands 3 - 1920x1080 Badass Overall Quality (DX11)
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
48.6 fps ∼100% +58%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
 
41.5 fps ∼85% +35%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
35.6 fps ∼73% +16%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
30.8 fps ∼63%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (29.5 - 30.8, n=3)
30.3 fps ∼62% -2%
Average of class Multimedia
  (15.8 - 30.8, n=3)
25.8 fps ∼53% -16%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
15.8 fps ∼33% -49%
Control - 1920x1080 High Quality Preset (DX11)
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
52.8 fps ∼100% +81%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
 
47.1 fps ∼89% +61%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
34.2 (min: 29, max: 39) fps ∼65% +17%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (32.1 - 33.4, n=4)
33 fps ∼63% +13%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
29.2 (99th percentile: 23.6) fps ∼55%
Average of class Multimedia
  (15.2 - 33.2, n=3)
25.9 fps ∼49% -11%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
15.2 (min: 12, max: 18) fps ∼29% -48%
Total War: Three Kingdoms - 1920x1080 Ultra (incl textures)
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
46.1 fps ∼100% +55%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (41.1 - 41.6, n=2)
41.4 fps ∼90% +39%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
35.8 (min: 31, max: 42) fps ∼78% +21%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
29.7 (min: 24, max: 35) fps ∼64%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (24.4 - 26.9, n=3)
25.8 fps ∼56% -13%
Average of class Multimedia
  (4.9 - 29.7, n=4)
18.8 fps ∼41% -37%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
13.6 (min: 12, max: 15) fps ∼30% -54%
Rage 2 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset (Resolution Scale Off)
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (67.9 - 68.8, n=2)
68.4 fps ∼100% +54%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (58.2 - 64.8, n=2)
61.5 fps ∼90% +39%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
53.4 (99th percentile: 47.4) fps ∼78% +20%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (45.1 - 60, n=3)
50.5 fps ∼74% +14%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
44.4 (99th percentile: 39.8) fps ∼65%
Average of class Multimedia
  (4.1 - 44.4, n=4)
25.8 fps ∼38% -42%
The Division 2 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
63 fps ∼100% +62%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (49 - 50, n=2)
49.5 fps ∼79% +27%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
42 fps ∼67% +8%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
39 fps ∼62%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (35 - 43, n=3)
38.3 fps ∼61% -2%
Average of class Multimedia
  (6 - 39, n=4)
21 fps ∼33% -46%
Apex Legends - 1920x1080 Maximum Settings AA:TS AF:16x
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
98.6 fps ∼100% +57%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
 
89 fps ∼90% +41%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
72 (min: 57, max: 86) fps ∼73% +14%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (65.4 - 71.7, n=3)
68.2 fps ∼69% +8%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
63 (min: 51, max: 74) fps ∼64%
Average of class Multimedia
  (12.4 - 63, n=5)
36.1 fps ∼37% -43%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
32.8 (min: 27, max: 41) fps ∼33% -48%
Dirt Rally 2.0 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:T AF:16x
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
62.3 fps ∼100% +24%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
58.4 (min: 52, max: 68) fps ∼94% +16%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (57.3 - 59.2, n=2)
58.3 fps ∼94% +16%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
50.2 (min: 46, max: 57) fps ∼81%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (41.8 - 44.1, n=3)
42.7 fps ∼69% -15%
Average of class Multimedia
  (10.4 - 50.2, n=6)
25.6 fps ∼41% -49%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
23.2 (min: 21, max: 26) fps ∼37% -54%
Metro Exodus - 1920x1080 Ultra Quality AF:16x
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (38.2 - 39.6, n=2)
38.9 fps ∼100% +36%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (35.1 - 36.8, n=2)
36 fps ∼93% +26%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
32.2 (min: 5, max: 59) fps ∼83% +13%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
28.6 (min: 15.57, max: 43.26) fps ∼74%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (24.9 - 25.9, n=3)
25.3 fps ∼65% -12%
Average of class Multimedia
  (4.5 - 28.6, n=6)
17.1 fps ∼44% -40%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
14.2 (min: 7.86, max: 22.94) fps ∼37% -50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (62 - 73, n=6)
66.8 fps ∼100% +45%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (49 - 64, n=3)
54 fps ∼81% +17%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
53 (min: 44) fps ∼79% +15%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
46 (min: 38, max: 74) fps ∼69%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (34 - 46, n=6)
42.2 fps ∼63% -8%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
34 fps ∼51% -26%
Average of class Multimedia
  (6 - 58, n=17)
27.1 fps ∼41% -41%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
23 (min: 17, max: 39) fps ∼34% -50%
Far Cry 5 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:T
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (83 - 87, n=3)
84.3 fps ∼100% +53%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
 
74 fps ∼88% +35%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
59 (min: 46, max: 77) fps ∼70% +7%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
55 (min: 47, max: 71) fps ∼65%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (44 - 53, n=3)
47.3 fps ∼56% -14%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
31 (min: 27, max: 39) fps ∼37% -44%
Average of class Multimedia
  (6 - 74, n=19)
27.9 fps ∼33% -49%
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark - 1920x1080 High Quality
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (55.4 - 58.7, n=3)
57.1 fps ∼100% +180%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (44.9 - 50, n=2)
47.5 fps ∼83% +133%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (33.6 - 37.2, n=3)
35.4 fps ∼62% +74%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
20.4 fps ∼36%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
14.3 (min: 6, max: 20) fps ∼25% -30%
Average of class Multimedia
  (3.7 - 37.2, n=20)
14.3 fps ∼25% -30%
Deus Ex Mankind Divided - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:2xMS AF:8x
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
 
44 fps ∼100% +58%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
27.8 (min: 22, max: 37) fps ∼63%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
 
27.5 fps ∼63% -1%
Average of class Multimedia
  (4.9 - 30, n=15)
14.4 fps ∼33% -48%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
13.1 (min: 10, max: 17) fps ∼30% -53%
The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
  (51.6 - 61.3, n=15)
56.2 fps ∼100% +45%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
  (48.5 - 53.1, n=4)
50.7 fps ∼90% +31%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
43.6 (min: 36, max: 48) fps ∼78% +12%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
Intel Core i9-9880H, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
38.8 (min: 34, max: 43) fps ∼69%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
36 fps ∼64% -7%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (33.1 - 38.1, n=16)