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.
15-Inch MacBook Pro AMD Radeon Pro Vega Graphics Options Now Available to Order
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t know how you guys game on a Mac or PC.
I’ve always been a console guy.
I tried to play Fornite on my 5K using a keyboard and mouse and I was all out of sorts.
Then again, even when I use an XBONE or a PS4 and controller I get torched online in shooter games and Madden by what I assume are 13 year olds.
CUDA is like Windows, not Intel.
Apple only moved to x86 when they had no other choice, they did not care if people could not run Windows properly. They now give you Bootcamp, but no support.
AMD announced publicly at CES in January that they were working on Vega Mobile chips (they even held a chip up to demonstrate) that was coming this year. So on the one hand it's not a surprise to see Vega Mobile chips launching this year.
On the other hand, Apple in recent years does not update its Macs very often. I can definitely understand many people who wanted the Vega upgrade shrugging in disappointment when the 2018 MBPs launched with the 560X as the top GPU and going ahead with their purchase while imagining that Vega mobile was delayed until mid-2019 at least.
So while I don't think Apple did anything wrong, I can totally empathize with people who purchased an expensive MBP in the past few months and who would have been willing to wait for the Vega GPU. It's also important to note that MBP GPU performance has been stagnant for over two years. The 2017 MBP used rebadged 2016 GPUs, and the 2018s initially used rebadged 2017 GPUs. So these new Vega chips provide the first significant bump in performance since mid-2016.
I don't game on a Mac or a PC anymore, I have an Xbox One. My son has an Xbox One X and a 4K TV, but insisted on building a gaming PC for himself. I helped him pick the parts, but he built it himself and he likes his system, for now. I used to be able to game with a keyboard and a mouse, but I do not think I can do that any more. Too old.
Not true. Apple HAD a choice. They, however, chose the sensible thing to do and switched to the superior manufacturer. This time, the situation is similar: They should switch GPU manufacturers; it would be the sensible thing to do. But they don't, apparently.
Btw, it actually does not matter if you compare CUDA with Windows or the CPU market situation.
Point being that Apple certainly does not care at all about the GPU market. They did not care about the CPU market either, so why should they? Apple is trying to make money, looooots of money. Maybe they even care about their customers, trying to create better products (as they tend to claim). But no, they certainly have no desire to act as saviors of the GPU market; even the thought seems preposterous (no insult intended). Why would they want to sell inferior products, putting them in a bad, bad market position. That's the last thing they'd do
Whatever the reason is - it seems unreasonable. They intentionally sell inferior products to customers at extremely high prices without a good cause. Very, very, very irrational
Last edited:
Apple usually know what they're doing. CPU throttling was due to a firmware bug which has been fixed.
11 pages, AND NOBODY posted the right specification for this GPU, and its performance.
Vega 16: 16 CUs, 1024 GCN5 cores, 1185 MHz core clock, 4 GB HBM2 with 192 GB/s memory bandwidth, 35W TDP Power Limit. 35% faster than Radeon Pro 560X.
Vega 20: 20 CUs, 1280 GCN5 cores, 1300 MHz core clock, 4 GB HBM2 with 192 GB/s memory bandwidth, 35W TDP Power Limit, 60% faster than Radeon Pro 560X.
Vega 20 is on the same performance level as Quadro P3000(EXACTLY the same), which is based on GP106 chip, but much more efficient(Vega Pro 20 has 35W PL, and Quadro P3000 has 80W PL). In games, the GPU will be 10-15% slower than GTX 1060 Max-Q. Vega 16 will be betqween GTX 1050-1050 Ti, which are as fast, or faster than desktop GTX 1050 Ti, but use more power, than desktop version.
For me it is truly insane, how much BS is spilled over this forum about AMD GPUs.
Not simple as that. Great they're offering it, yes, but they should have waited to release the 2018s or let July/August purchasers know the upgraded graphics card was coming.
[doublepost=1542242432][/doublepost]
I'm a huge Apple fan but I'm pissed they didn't let us know these options were coming. Never feel sorry for a 1 trillion dollar company, that's my motto, no matter how much I love their products.
Since you seem to know this as fact, this must mean you're an Apple or AMD enginner. If we go by what you say, then we already have benchmarks...
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/quadro-p3000-mobile.c2923
Looking at the graph the Vega 20 would be 17% faster than a 1050ti and 41% slower than a 1060 6gb. It would be roughly equal to a desktop GTX 780, which was released 5 years ago.
Tell me but don't look at brands.
How will 1280 core GPU, with 1248 MHz core clock, with 192 GB/s perform, compared to GPU with 1280 cores, 1300 MHz core clock, and 192 GB/s?
ALUs are ALUs.
P.S. Don't use techpowerup benchmark list for comparisons. Its mainly wrong.
https://www.notebookcheck.pl/NVIDIA-Quadro-P3000.191403.0.html
Look here. 12105 is the GPU score for 3dMark 11 benchmark. And it is for Quadro P3000, which uses GTX 1060 chip.
Here is the same benchmark and Vega Pro 20:
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/12875524/3dm11/12886777
12405 GPU score.
In terms of performance, Vega Pro 20 is 10-15% slower than GTX 1060 Max-Q.
How are they wrong? They take hunderds of benchamrks and divide to get the proper averages. If the P3000 is identical in prformance then those numbers should be accurate.
That ranking is not based on avearges, from their benchmarks.
Also, Quadro P3000 according to Techpowerup is based on GP104. Its not. It is based on GP106.
I know that if I want to make views something anti apple is very appealing, linux video on imac pro is a perfect example of a studied video, it was broke on purpose, their behaviour to the cs was on purpose yo be rejected, and they even kind of lied on the “Apple don’t own replacement parts”
Now these kind of videos may give some kind of satisfaction for a target audience like you but to mee your experience with one of the 100.000 customer facing employees world wide means nothing really.
Just the fact that you don’t realise that the same third party repair restrictions are a common business practice across technology companies say a lot about you. My issue with it is that makes real issue less visible because for anything that Apple do there are complains, like in this case, if they don’t update the gpu they don’t care about pros, if they do, it was a conspiracy to make you buy a new one few months later...it’s just small people talk and it’s not really appealing to me, put your money were your mouth is, buy something else, and spend your time focusing on products that makes you happy is all I can tell you, you would be a fool to do otherwise.
P.s. the sued part made me laugh, I give you that
Last edited:
The mobile version is 104, techpowerup is correct. Are you talking about the desktop, or the mobile version when you cite Vega 20 and the p3000?
https://videocardz.net/nvidia-quadro-p3000-mobile/
Look at the scores from the benchmarks.
Vega Pro 20 has 12405 GPU score in 3d Mark 11 benchamark, and Quadro P3000 in that benchmark scores 12105 pts.
And its 6 GB Version.
Got it.
Pretty impressive, considering it's about as fast as last generation 980m, that went into beastly laptops. Only 17% slower than the 1060 laptop, if true.
True, I am not super excited that we didn't know the release roadmap when I bought mine, but I think I'll be plenty fine with my 560x for quite some time - I didn't have enough time in between final cut background renders to even breathe!
Wonder if this is the new strategy - upgrade design/enclosure for the masses, and have a way to upgrade chips for us picky pros. That way, they both win.
I have seen wrong performance data on that site before.
I could see them doing that, since they seem to be focusing on the Mac a bit more...
Yes, they did the wrong thing before. They don't need to do the wrong thing again.
The problem is most definitely the monitor, not the Mac.
I had many similar issues and others with my LG 5K monitor so much so that after four repairs I got a full new replacement by LG. Had the same issues with the second one and after two repairs of that one I told them to shove it up their... and got a full refund for that too.
Probably never buying another LG product again. Not just because the product sucks but the support does too.
Those LG 4K/5K monitors royally suck. The display panel in them is pretty amazing - everything I'd expect from an Apple branded one. I've researched a lot and can't find anything remotely comparable other than what's in the iMacs/iMac Pros. But everything else about those LG monitors is utter junk. Most of the reviews reflect that too.
I highly advise against those LG 4K and 5K monitors. The new Apple ones apparently coming, can't come soon enough.
Last edited: