It's fine if Apple want to go green on laptops and keep battery life high. I'm just not convinced of how good Apple's plan to keep iMacs and Mac Pros green is going to be. Apart from keeping Macs running cool and silent I simply do not understand the purpose of such low-power graphics cards having to compete with their Windows computer equivalents. Apple is traveling its own path and that is to satisfy 95% of the users and I suppose that makes a lot of sense. Power users will just have to look elsewhere.
There's nothing stopping me from buying a Windows computer with powerful graphics cards, but it just seems a shame Apple chooses not to compete with Windows manufacturers at least on the Mac Pro level. Apple could have easily kept upgrading the cheese-grater Mac Pro guts to support the latest graphics cards and saved money and they still would have sold a lot of Mac Pros.
For the size of this laptop and what the gpu can move in its lowest version this machines are very very capable. People who complain not having the latest nvidia card or expect performance on par with a desktop gpu are just trolls. Macbook pro's had been always about pro apps, it is not a gaming laptop even when it has always performed decently. I used to play Ghost Recon Desert Siege on my first titanium powerbook. Run Arma 3 thru bootcamp on an old 2011 iMac and I can kick mayor butt on Hostile Take Over servers. Almost 100 players carnage. All those complains are just an excuse to justify they suck at gaming or the lack of chops to use their hardware at their fullest.
It is ok to not like something, but bash it cause is not what you expect is kind of childish. That's life in general, rarely you get exactly what you want. Sometimes a thing could not look or fulfill your needs at first glance but once you use it and get confortable with it then you realize that it may be better than your expectations.
Waited so long for this upgrade to the 15", but kinda disappointed that the RAM is once again maxed out at 16gb??? I was really expecting 32GB minimum...
They'd have to start using DDR4, they are still using LPDDR3. I figured they would change with Skylake. The RAM is soldered on so they have to decide if enough people will want it to justify adding it. It would be easier if they put 16GB in the lower one and 24 or 32 in the higher one. The price is high as it is though, adding an extra 16GB would up the prices another $200 or so, maybe more for high density memory.
mbene12 So disappointed with this graphics hardware. Why don't they go with the much better nvidia 1060 at the astronomical price points they have set? Was it driver issues?
It's probably down to performance-per-watt and price. GPUs like the notebook versions of the desktop GPUs are powerful but have high power usage, which results in poor battery life:
Pascal and Polaris are around 40GFLOPs/Watt. If you pick the power profile, you are going to get roughly the same performance from AMD or NVidia. If you stick to 35W of power, you get 1.4TFLOPs. The 460 is likely running around 45W. The 1060 notebook GPU is ~80W (~3.2TFLOPs), some values are listed here:
Those GPUs are ok when running on power but they make off-power battery life terrible and all that power gets turned into heat that has to be dissipated. NVidia will have a 1050 at some point, which is the class Apple has used in the MBP before (650M, 750M):
Does Radeon Pro 460 offer a significant change compared to Radeon Pro 455?
1.86 Terraflops vs 1 Terraflops.
Anybody can enlighten me?
I was thinking of purchasing the high end, but I saw there is an upgrade option for the Radeon Pro 460 with 4GB memory
It depends if you will use the extra power and memory, it's also 1.86TFLOPs (460) vs 1.3TFLOPs (455), the 450 is 1 TFLOP. The most obvious difference will show up in gaming but also some compute tasks like graphics software that use the GPU (Adobe, Final Cut etc). It's an ok performance increase for the price (>40% for $200 when the CPU options are about 10% for $300) but still not that noticeable. If you aren't into higher-end gaming, 3D, graphics, you won't notice the difference at all and the 460 GPU should run a bit hotter than the 455. I'd expect the power draws to be roughly 45W for 460, 35W for 455 and 25W for the 450. The 450 should perform closely to the R9 M370X in the old model but it will just run much cooler.
Suitable for 1080p60 in most games and on the internal screen at 900p, it will run even better.
so your saying having 2012 performance is a good thing? Really pushing the boundaries. This is the reason why as a gaming platform macs are the ugly cousin and the reason why i still get a windows machine for my gaming delights. For gaming (and I prefer a laptop due to space) MacPro's are a ferrari with a speed limiter on it.
Its a good size market that Apple seems to be ensuring is only an after thought and in all senses just ignores. But I know I am an user that will never be served by Apple for that part of my computing needs as it goes. Its a shame as im willing to spend the money for the system but they just dont offer one.
It depends if you will use the extra power and memory, it's also 1.86TFLOPs (460) vs 1.3TFLOPs (455), the 450 is 1 TFLOP. The most obvious difference will show up in gaming but also some compute tasks like graphics software that use the GPU (Adobe, Final Cut etc). It's an ok performance increase for the price (>40% for $200 when the CPU options are about 10% for $300) but still not that noticeable. If you aren't into higher-end gaming, 3D, graphics, you won't notice the difference at all and the 460 GPU should run a bit hotter than the 455. I'd expect the power draws to be roughly 45W for 460, 35W for 455 and 25W for the 450. The 450 should perform closely to the R9 M370X in the old model but it will just run much cooler.
Thanks for this. You explain it very detail! Very cool! Oh and I didn't know the 460 would be tad hotter.
I am a digital UI/UX designer, so I usually work with loads of chrome tabs (for research and all), also Adobes: mostly Photoshops and Illustrators at the same time. or InDesign too if I was working on prints project. What do you think I should get? The 460 one?
Please advise.
They increased the price If only they had included all of the dongles we have to buy, I meant, if they had, the price increase would be a lot easier to accept.
so your saying having 2012 performance is a good thing? Really pushing the boundaries. This is the reason why as a gaming platform macs are the ugly cousin and the reason why i still get a windows machine for my gaming delights. For gaming (and I prefer a laptop due to space) MacPro's are a ferrari with a speed limiter on it.
Its a good size market that Apple seems to be ensuring is only an after thought and in all senses just ignores. But I know I am an user that will never be served by Apple for that part of my computing needs as it goes. Its a shame as im willing to spend the money for the system but they just dont offer one.
They didn't have this performance per watt in 2012. The 680M is 100W and was used in the 2012 iMac (680MX model). To get that performance into a slim laptop like the MBP is a good thing.
The PC gaming market is large but most people don't use or need high-end GPUs. The 460 mobile GPU is roughly the same as what's in the PS4. The GPUs could always be faster by upping the power profile. Apple picked a reasonable level at 45W and it matches the CPU power.
I am a digital UI/UX designer, so I usually work with loads of chrome tabs (for research and all), also Adobes: mostly Photoshops and Illustrators at the same time. or InDesign too if I was working on prints project. What do you think I should get? The 460 one?
You could get by with the entry 450 model for this kind of work. The powerful GPUs are more suited to video processing, heavy computation and 3D graphics.
If it is not possible to get real GPU power into this slim and super light unibody, Apple should build a new TB display with integrated GPU for real desktop performance.... Offering a LG display is really a shame.... Even the iMac has much more power... wrong world
so your saying having 2012 performance is a good thing? Really pushing the boundaries. This is the reason why as a gaming platform macs are the ugly cousin and the reason why i still get a windows machine for my gaming delights. For gaming (and I prefer a laptop due to space) MacPro's are a ferrari with a speed limiter on it.
Its a good size market that Apple seems to be ensuring is only an after thought and in all senses just ignores. But I know I am an user that will never be served by Apple for that part of my computing needs as it goes. Its a shame as im willing to spend the money for the system but they just dont offer one.
They didn't have this performance per watt in 2012. The 680M is 100W and was used in the 2012 iMac (680MX model). To get that performance into a slim laptop like the MBP is a good thing.
The PC gaming market is large but most people don't use or need high-end GPUs. The 460 mobile GPU is roughly the same as what's in the PS4. The GPUs could always be faster by upping the power profile. Apple picked a reasonable level at 45W and it matches the CPU power.
I understand what you are saying but the desire nay obsession Apple has for thinness determines the components that are used and leads to compromisesee when you have the air for ultimate portability the iMac's for desktop, for me the MacBook pro just doesn't deliver what I want and means I "have" to buy a Windows machine.
"Iris Graphics 540 found on the 13-inch late 2016 MacBook Pro has a peak performance of 806 gigaflops"
Not a performance, and Oi, comparing gigaflops accross not only architectures, but entirely different manufacturers.
It's not a performance measure. It's a simple function of shader cores x clock speed x 2 operations per cycle per shader. If Nvidias cores do more per cycle than AMDs and AMDs do more per cycle than Intels (as is roughly the case), comparing the numbers is misleading. Also not taking into account bandwidth etc etc.
Comments
There's nothing stopping me from buying a Windows computer with powerful graphics cards, but it just seems a shame Apple chooses not to compete with Windows manufacturers at least on the Mac Pro level. Apple could have easily kept upgrading the cheese-grater Mac Pro guts to support the latest graphics cards and saved money and they still would have sold a lot of Mac Pros.
Macbook pro's had been always about pro apps, it is not a gaming laptop even when it has always performed decently. I used to play Ghost Recon Desert Siege on my first titanium powerbook. Run Arma 3 thru bootcamp on an old 2011 iMac and I can kick mayor butt on Hostile Take Over servers. Almost 100 players carnage.
All those complains are just an excuse to justify they suck at gaming or the lack of chops to use their hardware at their fullest.
It is ok to not like something, but bash it cause is not what you expect is kind of childish. That's life in general, rarely you get exactly what you want. Sometimes a thing could not look or fulfill your needs at first glance but once you use it and get confortable with it then you realize that it may be better than your expectations.
how does it help with graphic design software, video rendering, 3D rendering, games (for those who play, not me), ...
For me those are just numbers that don't make sense...
It's probably down to performance-per-watt and price. GPUs like the notebook versions of the desktop GPUs are powerful but have high power usage, which results in poor battery life:
https://insider.razerzone.com/index.php?threads/razer-blade-1060-qhd-battery-life.17102/
Pascal and Polaris are around 40GFLOPs/Watt. If you pick the power profile, you are going to get roughly the same performance from AMD or NVidia. If you stick to 35W of power, you get 1.4TFLOPs. The 460 is likely running around 45W. The 1060 notebook GPU is ~80W (~3.2TFLOPs), some values are listed here:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Pascal-Mobile-GTX-1080-1070-and-1060-Enter-Gaming-Notebooks
Those GPUs are ok when running on power but they make off-power battery life terrible and all that power gets turned into heat that has to be dissipated. NVidia will have a 1050 at some point, which is the class Apple has used in the MBP before (650M, 750M):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1050-Notebook.178614.0.html
The new MBPs just have to be better than the old ones and they are. The R9 M370x is listed here at 1TFLOP:
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2730/radeon-r9-m370x-mac-edition
If the 460 is 1.86TFLOPs, that's a decent improvement for someone upgrading from an older laptop. It will be fine for gaming, being around this level:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680M.72679.0.html
Suitable for 1080p60 in most games and on the internal screen at 900p, it will run even better.
1.86 Terraflops vs 1 Terraflops.
Anybody can enlighten me?
I was thinking of purchasing the high end, but I saw there is an upgrade option for the Radeon Pro 460 with 4GB memory
This is the reason why as a gaming platform macs are the ugly cousin and the reason why i still get a windows machine for my gaming delights.
For gaming (and I prefer a laptop due to space) MacPro's are a ferrari with a speed limiter on it.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-01-26-pc-trumps-mobile-console-in-booming-usd61bn-digital-games-market
Its a good size market that Apple seems to be ensuring is only an after thought and in all senses just ignores.
But I know I am an user that will never be served by Apple for that part of my computing needs as it goes. Its a shame as im willing to spend the money for the system but they just dont offer one.
I am a digital UI/UX designer, so I usually work with loads of chrome tabs (for research and all), also Adobes: mostly Photoshops and Illustrators at the same time. or InDesign too if I was working on prints project. What do you think I should get? The 460 one?
Please advise.
They increased the price
The PC gaming market is large but most people don't use or need high-end GPUs. The 460 mobile GPU is roughly the same as what's in the PS4. The GPUs could always be faster by upping the power profile. Apple picked a reasonable level at 45W and it matches the CPU power.
You could get by with the entry 450 model for this kind of work. The powerful GPUs are more suited to video processing, heavy computation and 3D graphics.
Not a performance, and Oi, comparing gigaflops accross not only architectures, but entirely different manufacturers.