Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CINEBENCH! AMD Radeon R9 M370X
- Thread starter admanne
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In the AMD APP SDK v3.0 Beta release notes it reads:
Supported Devices:
"OpenCL™ 2.0: AMD Radeon HD 7790, AMD Radeon HD 8770, AMD Radeon HD 8500M/8600M/8700M/8800M/8900M Series" - amd.com
And 8800M series is based on Cape Verde chips.
Last edited:
You had to get the $2000 iMac to get the 675MX, plus I can get a GTX 980M in a cheap $1500 Gaming Notebook or an R9 M290X in a $1200 one. Your point?
Maybe there is something I'm not getting. The M370X is more than powerful to play modern games or do GPU intensive tasks. So you need to get another PC just to get a 950M+? This is just hilarious. LOL You guys need to marry these GTX 900M GPUs.
Thats interesting, because http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/OpenCL2-Driver.aspx says that GCN 1.1 or higher is needed for OpenCL 2.0. Also, there is no desktop Cape Verde chip on the 2.0 support list (the lowest is 7790 which is no Cape Verde based). So are these mobile chips not GCN 1.0 after all? Or is there a typo somewhere on the website?
Edit: I found at least one source saying that 8870M is GCN 1.1: http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/index.php?gid=1299&graphics=Radeon HD 8870M Does anyone have more information?
Last edited:
That might have to do while the M370X is 24% faster (2300 firestrike) than the 750M if you don't cheat and compare the 750M with old drivers. The 960M is at over 4000 points a whopping 70% faster and over twice as fast as a 750M not 24% faster.
And before anybody comes with but the 960M has way too TDP. The 960M is about as hot as the 850M and has basically replaced the 850M. There is literally no 950M notebook, they all come with 960M. 950M will be the DDR3 version with 960M being the new X50M.
This Asus got 120W max power with a 960M and 118W with a 850M. 90W typical 3Dmark11 load power consumption.
The complaint is about paying top dollar for clearly not top of the line product. Even with disabled Turbo like the 750M was the Maxwell chip would be a lot better than the M370X.
Sure the Mac isn't all about raw power but for the price shouldn't it be as good as possible in the form factor.
First things first I absolutely agree with you that MBP is not a gaming laptop. Nor it is supposed to be one. So anyone expecting Apple to fit a 60W+ GPU in there is clearly delusional.
Having said that the 950M consumes just as much power (or less) than the 650M/750M/m370x, while being significantly faster. I don't understand why it is wrong for us to expect Apple to include suitable up-to-date, best-in-class GPUs in their laptops. You say they never did that? But you would be wrong! Both AMD 6770M in the 2011 and the 650m in 2012 were best-in-class GPUs! Same with 680MX/780MX in the iMac Apple even had Nvidia custom-build the 680MX for the iMac. So you have to understand that their choice of an older, less performant AMD card (given the alternatives in the same power envelope) appear questionable.
Well, I somehow agree with you. For me at least (and lets talk about gaming, because outside of that, I don't really need a GPU), the GPU is adequate as long as I can casually play some games. The 650M on my 2012 rMBP is not adequate anymore. I don't enjoy playing games like GW2 or Cities Skylines on it. I am quite sure that the m370x will make it enjoyable again. At the same time, the 950m would make it even more enjoyable. Let us make this clear: I am not complaining. I think the AMD card is a very solid upgrade from the 750M. But at the same time I am disappointed and somehow puzzled that Apple make this particular choice.
My final thoughts... the new GPU is awesome (yes new, I don't care if it is using some tech from 2012) it's still new in what it's capable (5k) we have a new faster card in a new updated MBP = Awesome sauce. 
If you don't like it and want a 800 or 900 series Nvidia, I'm sorry you didn't get what you wanted... perhaps you should go build the ultimate machine you want. I feel the arguments and complaining are getting kind of "eh."
The fact is: Apple DID NOT put the greatest most powerful gaming/graphics card ever in this MBP. Best thing to do is buy the machine or don't, but we are all just going in circles, many like the new card and are happy with the update, while others are not, and some even down those who like either card... and that's just "meh"... It's kind of like complaining the Sky is Blue, we can't do anything about it, but if you don't like it, don't look at it. Do I wish Apple put a dGPU that has even more power?... yes, and no, I would like a machine that could play all games at the highest settings possible and more, but I like the added battery life and this GPU is fully capable of doing games and many more intensive work and that's exactly what the MBP is for, and what I need... Anyhoo good Sunday folks!
Kal.
If you don't like it and want a 800 or 900 series Nvidia, I'm sorry you didn't get what you wanted... perhaps you should go build the ultimate machine you want.
I feel the arguments and complaining are getting kind of "eh." The fact is: Apple DID NOT put the greatest most powerful gaming/graphics card ever in this MBP. Best thing to do is buy the machine or don't, but we are all just going in circles, many like the new card and are happy with the update, while others are not, and some even down those who like either card... and that's just "meh"... It's kind of like complaining the Sky is Blue, we can't do anything about it, but if you don't like it, don't look at it. Do I wish Apple put a dGPU that has even more power?... yes, and no, I would like a machine that could play all games at the highest settings possible and more, but I like the added battery life and this GPU is fully capable of doing games and many more intensive work and that's exactly what the MBP is for, and what I need... Anyhoo good Sunday folks!
Kal.
You hit it on the head here. I appreciate that the new card is quicker, and that the 4x PCIE ssd makes a big difference as well. But when they had perfectly acceptable access to much better cards after having this machine sit with an older card design (still based on the 650 reference design) I really thought that when they upgraded the card, we would see more significant gains. When they put a solid card in the iMac 5k (295x) I was impressed. That card is basically on par with a 970m, and the only card on the market quicker is a 980m.
Look at the list of cards faster then the 370x. 780, 850, 860, 870, 880, 950, 960, 970, 980, R9 290, R9 295, etc. Now granted, some of these are too power hungry to be available. But Apple has truly drawn a line in the sand with their consumer class units and their Pro class units. The 15" Pro should not be treated like a battery sipping ultrabook, but a powerhouse. And it is....all the way until you get to that GPU. Heres a thought, offer a 250.00 upgrade to a 970m and include a bigger Power Supply. Think about that, how many of us here would spend the 250 and upgrade? <raising both hands> It costs more? No problem, give me the option of paying for it BTO. I would trip over myself to pay them for that class of upgrade.
I walked into my local Apple Store and asked and they happen to have this machine. I am coming from a 2012 MacBook Pro that I broke and needed to replace. Numbers mean nothing to me, what matters is I was able to play Starcraft II on medium setting at 1080p resolution on an external monitor and was getting well above 60fps. Most times it was in the the hundreds until bigger battles. I also played Diablo, counter strike and that new heroes game from blizzard and all ran at great frame rates.
What I did notice is the battery life is no where near 9 hours and goes down fairly quickly for a MacBook Pro. Somewhere around 6 hours. When the computer switches to this AMD card it gets really hot as well. I'm not sure I like how much heat this card generates so I had to use gfxstatus to force it to go into iris pro.
For some reason watching YouTube in full screen switches from iris pro to this card and so does using inelije idea for coding .
Overall this card is alright and better than the 750m for sure. I don't know if anything better would even work because the fans kick up pretty loud and I actually don't know if you can run a Mac and play any games on it for more than 30 minutes. I am afraid it will break although the temperature was around 65 degrees after 45 min of playing Starcraft. Maybe someone else knows if you can run MacBooks hard without them dying out.
What I did notice is the battery life is no where near 9 hours and goes down fairly quickly for a MacBook Pro. Somewhere around 6 hours. When the computer switches to this AMD card it gets really hot as well. I'm not sure I like how much heat this card generates so I had to use gfxstatus to force it to go into iris pro.
For some reason watching YouTube in full screen switches from iris pro to this card and so does using inelije idea for coding .
Overall this card is alright and better than the 750m for sure. I don't know if anything better would even work because the fans kick up pretty loud and I actually don't know if you can run a Mac and play any games on it for more than 30 minutes. I am afraid it will break although the temperature was around 65 degrees after 45 min of playing Starcraft. Maybe someone else knows if you can run MacBooks hard without them dying out.
I would pay $300 for a 960-970m. But I don't think there's much wasted room in the rMBP? They would have to make it quite a bit thicker, probably even cMBP, to include a bigger power supply, GPU and keep battery life the same, no?
You are absolutely right. Having a more power-hungry card also means that your cooling system needs to be able to dissipate the heat. Just having a bigger power supply is not enough. In its current design, the rMBP cannot deal with hot components. Razor can do it because they sacrifice the battery size significantly, which allows them to increase the area of the logic board and use a bigger, more capable cooling system.
I'm actually quite happy they went this way, makes my late '13 rMBP still a top notch machine...
I do like AMD cards, but I fail to understand why they went with old tech now, as MBP always had the best performance per watt cards available at launch time.
I am very curious about what card will be on Skylake rMBP...
Come on man... you know they are not going to put anything more than a 950, and the 950 and 850 have the same performance. These are workstation computers, that need to have great battery life.
And much better? The 950/850 are not THAT much better. We are talking a few FPS in real life.
You guys are insane. lol
They used NVidia in the 2012 and 2013 revisions (2014 was mostly the same as late 2013). They used AMD in 2011. They used NVidia in 2010. I think they used AMD in one or two other macbook pros. AMD was also used in earlier mac pros and some imacs.
Apple typically uses the most recent generation of NVidia gpus. They've switched between NVidia and AMD for years, yet every time a few people come up with convoluted reasoning for this. It may be based on cost, but it doesn't change that they frequently flip flop on this, yet use the most recent ones that are available when that specific Mac debuts.
Yes, 8800M series and M270X both are using Cape Verde's newer revision WITH GCN 1.1. Therefore, there has to be an error in Anandtech's assumption that it is Cape Verde GCN 1.0, because mobile chips have been using GCN 1.1 since 2013.
http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=2778&gid2=2222&compare=radeon-hd-8850m-v2-vs-radeon-r9-m270x
Did your fans kick up to an unbearable noise level? Mine seems to do that, although the temperature doesn't seem to be as much of an issue compared to my 2010 model. I'm planning on stopping by the store tomorrow to have it checked in case it's a defect.
Do you also have another source on that? Because from all I can find, the 8870m (and other rebrands) have 640 shader cores and 1.5B transistors identical to the Cape Verde HD 7770. There seem to be a number of conflicting sources on the web. Anandtech claims that its a Cape Verde (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6571/amd-releases-full-product-specifications-for-radeon-8000m-series), quoting an AMD press-release, but I am unable to find any definitive info on AMD website as some internal links seem dead. The game-debate tells something else, but there is no source given. Then there is some weird stuff on wikipedia, quoting some Venus XT chip, again, with no source.
AMD's naming conventions are a mess. I've heard Strato XT, Tonga, Hawaii, Venus XT, and Cape Verde in the span of one thread. The only architecture I'm waiting to see is the Bullshiito XT R9 480X.
Last edited:
I use headphones when playing games but overall I can hear them if I take them off. It's definetly working hard. I was using it in clamshell mode while playing but that might make it even hotter so sometimes I open it up. I feel like the fans would kick up even if you were doing serious video editing for a few hours at a time. What is the proper way to "game" in clamshell or have the lid open?
This graphics card is not bad at all but like I said battery
Life is worse than even the base 15 inch pro. I tried them all out for one day starting from the 13" and returned all the way up to this guy.
Pretty much we have no choice! I refuse to use PC even if their graphics cards are better. They break down, windows sill crashes and I'll take an apple product over the gaming laptop any day!!! Maybe in future I'll build a strict gaming machine but the MacBook Pro is not designed for it.
AMD6821.1 = “VENUS XT”
That is from AMD's driver. And from Anandtech's text you can see, that Apples GPU driver has also this number: 6821
And from wikipedia you can find that 8870M = Venus XT
So, M370X = 8870M = Venux XT
Ok, sure, but how do we know that "Venus XT" is not Cape Verde? And besides, that seems to be a product codename rather then the name of the chip. Venus XT, Venus XTX etc. seem to refer the the same chip, but differently clocked (https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/PC/1002)
See also https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/PC/1002/6821
All in all, Anandtech seems to be correct. At any rate, I will give up this private investigation now
So, just google "Solar System AMD" and you'll find all sorts of information, that these GPU's are using second generation GCN. Which later became version 1.1.
I have abused all of my MacBook Pros, this includes long gamin sessions and also some statistical simulations run on all 8 virtual cores for 20-40 hours on my 2012 retina. They all did fine so far.