[brudgers]

What I found interesting is that the system used for all the benchmarks is significantly more expensive than the systems listed on the first page - 12 cores, 32gb Ram, and a 512gb SSD prices out at $7699, nearly double the cost of the more expensive of the two configurations listed on the first page, and it's still 10% more expensive than the "Most Expensive Configuration Upgrade Path" on page two - which means your wallet will be $700 bucks lighter.

And that's probably generous - from the GPU analysis appears that the tested unit has D700's which bumps the price to $8299 - a configuration that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. About the only thing left to upgrade on the test unit is the RAM to 64gb.

Since the article calls itself a review, it would be better if the review unit was accurately described. It seems to me there's a bit of bait and switch because the performance numbers presented are not for the $3000 or $4000 presented in the article's lead.

[smackfu]

The systems listed on the first page are the advertised base models from Apple. The unit they benchmarked for the review is presumably a review unit that they had no choice about.

OTOH, it's a little surprising that Apple gave out 12 core review units, since the 8 core seems to be better at benchmarking.

[rsynnott]

They gave Macworld and The Verge, at least, 8 core units. Perhaps a case of know your audience; neither of those sites would be necessarily too inclined to go into _why_ the 12 core part is slower in many benchmarks, whereas Anandtech, of course, will.

[brudgers]

The author chose what to write and the editor chose what to edit and the publisher chose what to publish. Likewise, Apple chose what to send AnandTech, and chose to send the influential publication an $8300 machine rather than a more common model for benchmarking.

In light of the fact that much less expensive machines often performed better, it seems obvious that the favorable conclusion of the review ought to provide some rational case for being so.