Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It is not standard Polaris, it is custom. It has more ROPs, for example.

But it is still only DX 12.0, not 12.1 . I see this as the main reason why it shouldn't be called "Vega".
Vega has more instructions than Polaris. People forget that GCN is ISA. Graphics implementation is just evolutionary implementation of graphics pipeline of VLIV4. ROP number, however, would not constitute whether it is Polaris or Vega architecture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Vega has more instructions than Polaris. People forget that GCN is ISA. Graphics implementation is just evolutionary implementation of graphics pipeline of VLIV4. ROP number, however, would not constitute whether it is Polaris or Vega architecture.
I mean it's just a faster Polaris.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
You can do it if you don't mind the high price and don't need the highest performance. It's still too expensive for my taste.
1. People always whine that Macs have crappy graphics performance.

2. Apple solves that (AND simultaneously FUTURE-PROOFS the GPU!), in a way that does NOT bust the packaging nor thermal or POWER SUPPLY budgets.

3. The above solution is applied universally across Apple's lineup.

4. People whine that it is "too expensive", conveniently ignoring the cost of the graphics cards and the requisite arc-welder-grade power supplies; both of which are anything BUT insignificant!

Seriously.

Now, ask yourself how any other solution would work for a Mac mini, Macbook (of any variant), or even an iMac. In fact, these GPUs are getting SO power-hungry, that even the Power Supply in the venerable Cheese Grater Mac Pro might be insufficient.

Then what??
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Bad analogy is bad.

It's more like if in January '19 they decide to introduce a 1 TB option for the iPhone XS, when higher capacity NAND chips become available. That one will obviously be more expensive than the 512 GB model.

Really that's a much better analogy to the MBP Vega situation right now. It's still the same model as before, they just added higher end GPU options (at higher prices) since higher end chips became available.

Nothing to complain or get pissed about. Except if you're that childish.

Bad analogy. Selecting 1TB doesn't unlock performance improvements that would actually allow me to do my job. Right now my 560X can't perform properly when 2x4K screens are connected. Please don't lecture me about giving bad analogies when you can't even give a good one yourself. Absolutely mind boggling.

And if you're going to call me childish, I'm not even going to read your reply. If you can't keep the conversation civil, why should I bother what you have to say?
[doublepost=1542482910][/doublepost]
No because external SSD storage can always be purchased and it is quite fast now, either with USB-C 3.1 gen 2 or Thunderbolt 2 and many people ordered machines with 1-2 TB which is plenty. There is no substitute for a good internal GPU. An eGPU can be added to any of the 2016s and newer regardless of whether or not they even have a dGPU but carrying that around is not practical! External SSDs are small and can be thrown in a backpack or notebook bag.

While I have now gotten over it, the fact is that Apple has never changed the GPU in between two releases. What they released when the original models dropped is what they had through the entire cycle. This is unprecedented and I hope it’s not the new normal.

The fact is that two-three years from now when people want to upgrade and put their machines on eBay those with the 560X will no longer fetch top dollar. People will only pay the extra cash for Vega 16 and 20. In fact a 1TB machine with Vega 20 will probably sell for the same as a 2 TB machine with the 560X. The GPU is that important.

It’s similar to the desirability of machines with 32 GB RAM vs. 16. Two years from now 16 GB will not be very attractive.

Agreed with this so much
 
You’re not recalling the pricing correctly. It is exactly the same as last year for the low/mid/high end models at $2,399/2,799/3,099. Pricing for RAM/SSD also did not change, though as in the case of the graphics options, there are now higher cost (higher-end) configurations available, i.e. 32GB/4TB/Vega.

To be fair, I had been pulling numbers from memory. I paid £2428 (with UK edu discount - 10% I think?) for the if I recall base-upper-end spec with 512GB, 16GB RAM and the 560. Given that the base-lower-end spec this time around cannot be configured with the Vega, I would be forced to spend £2700 ±20 after discount to get the option with the highest GPU as last time.

I get that the pricing model is more or less the same, my point was looking at the issue of getting a max-spec graphics model this time around compared to last year (where the 560 was max option and default in the right hand spec). I believe it should have been the Vega 16 as the base GPU in the right hand spec, with the Vega 20 being the upgrade options. But in the end people will still buy it, as I would have if I had been needing a computer this time around, and it's a sad fact of modern day pricing.
[doublepost=1542515580][/doublepost]
I can't find any "price hike" in either USD or EUR. Prices for 2018 MBP are the same as 2017 or 2016 for the respective models. Maybe it's just that GBP has gotten weaker due to Brexit?

Yeah my bad on the 'hike'. I should have framed it better to convey what I intended; the previous iterations included the better line of GPU by default, I am disappointed that the Vega 16 at least isn't included in the upper spec model by default, and for me to upgrade to the max spec graphics it would cost a fair amount more. Got my iMac and MBP purchases muddled when remembering the pricing - MBP purchase was £2428, not £2100.
 
Bad analogy. Selecting 1TB doesn't unlock performance improvements that would actually allow me to do my job. Right now my 560X can't perform properly when 2x4K screens are connected. Please don't lecture me about giving bad analogies when you can't even give a good one yourself. Absolutely mind boggling.

And if you're going to call me childish, I'm not even going to read your reply. If you can't keep the conversation civil, why should I bother what you have to say?

1 TB instead of 512 gigs in an iPhone doesn't unlock performance improvements but it unlocks double the storage capacity.. Which for someone who deems a 512 GB iPhone insufficient might be as crucial as for you the higher graphics power in the MBP.

Since you started out using iPhone for your (bad) analogy, I stuck with iPhone to come up with a better one, and since storage sizes are the only configuration options (colors aside) in an iPhone, that's the only iPhone-analogy to the MBP GPU situation that actually makes some sense.. If you think about it you'll probably agree that it's a better fit (new option at higher price vs. new model at same price, external storage for iPhone much less feasible than external graphics for MBP).

I didn't actually call you childish, at least not directly. I see that was likely to be misconstrued, a mod deleted that part anyway.
[doublepost=1542550275][/doublepost]
To be fair, I had been pulling numbers from memory. I paid £2428 (with UK edu discount - 10% I think?) for the if I recall base-upper-end spec with 512GB, 16GB RAM and the 560. Given that the base-lower-end spec this time around cannot be configured with the Vega, I would be forced to spend £2700 ±20 after discount to get the option with the highest GPU as last time.

I get that the pricing model is more or less the same, my point was looking at the issue of getting a max-spec graphics model this time around compared to last year (where the 560 was max option and default in the right hand spec). I believe it should have been the Vega 16 as the base GPU in the right hand spec, with the Vega 20 being the upgrade options. But in the end people will still buy it, as I would have if I had been needing a computer this time around, and it's a sad fact of modern day pricing.
[doublepost=1542515580][/doublepost]

Yeah my bad on the 'hike'. I should have framed it better to convey what I intended; the previous iterations included the better line of GPU by default, I am disappointed that the Vega 16 at least isn't included in the upper spec model by default, and for me to upgrade to the max spec graphics it would cost a fair amount more. Got my iMac and MBP purchases muddled when remembering the pricing - MBP purchase was £2428, not £2100.

I get your reasoning, however I don't think that would be a reasonable option for Apple. HBM2 memory is expensive. And there's probably a reason for the delay of mobile Vega, who knows how bad the yields are!

Also, had Apple done that I could find at least some sympathy for the 560X MBP owners who are now acting as if they'd been robbed...
 
Last edited:
AMD Pro Vega 20 is somewhere between Nvidia GTX 1050 and GTX 1050 Ti
So a Mac Mini with the best external GOU will blow it out of the water
Nope. Vega Pro 20 is 10-15% slower than GTX 1060 Max-Q, and around 25-30% faster than GTX 1050 Ti. It is on the same level as Vega M GH.

Why do people post the same thing over and over?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Nope. Vega Pro 20 is 10-15% slower than GTX 1060 Max-Q, and around 25-30% faster than GTX 1050 Ti. It is on the same level as Vega M GH.

Why do people post the same thing over and over?
Nope. The graphics card offers 20 CUs (1,280 shaders) and 4 GB HBM2 memory. The performance should be on a level with the Radeon RX Vega M GL (also 1,280 shaders) and therefore between a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Vega-20-GPU-Graphics-Card.361941.0.html
 
Nope. The graphics card offers 20 CUs (1,280 shaders) and 4 GB HBM2 memory. The performance should be on a level with the Radeon RX Vega M GL (also 1,280 shaders) and therefore between a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Vega-20-GPU-Graphics-Card.361941.0.html

Let's wait for some benchmarks. It wouldn't surprise me if Vega Pro 20, being a 'true' Vega GPU, outperforms the Vega M GL, which is a Polaris / Vega hybrid.
 
Nope. The graphics card offers 20 CUs (1,280 shaders) and 4 GB HBM2 memory. The performance should be on a level with the Radeon RX Vega M GL (also 1,280 shaders) and therefore between a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Vega-20-GPU-Graphics-Card.361941.0.html
<facepalm>

Vega M GL has 1011 MHz boost clock.
Vega Pro 20 has 1.3 GHz boost clock, so it will be around 25-28% faster than Vega M GL.

Also there are already leaked 3DMark11 benchamrks of Vega Pro 20 with 12405 GPU score which put it on the same level as Quadro P3000, and 25-30% faster than GTX 1050 Ti.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akis-k and MrUNIMOG
It is ridiculous that the only configuration that could be considered acceptable costs over $7000.
 
Erm.. What?
32 GiB RAM, at least 3TB storage, at least 6-core. What I was looking for around 2014.

I would have bought a Xeon 12-core laptop for around $4000, but it was not practical when not driving.
 
Last edited:
It is ridiculous that the only configuration that could be considered acceptable costs over $7000.

That is your idea of “acceptable”? The 2.6GHz Core i7, 32GB and 1TB will work for many, many Pros. You may have somewhat unique needs, but it reads more like you are looking for something to complain about with Apple because they are not meeting the price in your mind that you think they should and therefore it is “ridiculous”.
 
32 GiB RAM, at least 3TB storage, at least 6-core. What I was looking for around 2014.

I would have bought a Xeon 12-core laptop for around $4000, but it was not practical when not driving.

You mean something like the Eurocom Panther 5SE? Which weighs 12.1lbs and 2.48" thick? Which looks like it is still being sold...for a start price of $4,416.00 USD? Seriously?

That is like comparing a boat anchor to a life preserver...but if that is what you consider "acceptable", go for it!

Just make sure you have a good chiropractic plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
That is your idea of “acceptable”? The 2.6GHz Core i7, 32GB and 1TB will work for many, many Pros. You may have somewhat unique needs, but it reads more like you are looking for something to complain about with Apple because they are not meeting the price in your mind that you think they should and therefore it is “ridiculous”.
Yes, because I was looking for those specs four years ago.

An 8-core, 64GiB, Vega 56, 2TB NVMe, 2TB SSD laptop would cost 3400 euro.
[doublepost=1542746369][/doublepost]
You mean something like the Eurocom Panther 5SE? Which weighs 12.1lbs and 2.48" thick? Which looks like it is still being sold...for a start price of $4,416.00 USD? Seriously?

That is like comparing a boat anchor to a life preserver...but if that is what you consider "acceptable", go for it!

Just make sure you have a good chiropractic plan.
That was the extreme plan. You could not get a 3.3kg laptop with more than 4 cores, but you could put 2.5TB storage in a compact laptop in 2013. 4TB in 2015. 6TB in 2016. More later but expensive. 32GiB RAM since 2012.

The hard drive vendors have been too lazy for ages.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because I was looking for those specs four years ago.

An 8-core, 64GiB, Vega 56, 2TB NVMe, 2TB SSD laptop would cost 3400 euro.
[doublepost=1542746369][/doublepost]
That was the extreme plan. You could not get a 3.3kg laptop with more than 4 cores, but you could put 3TB storage in a compact laptop in 2015. 4TB in 2016. 32GiB RAM since 2012.

Based on those specification, you were never in the market for a MacBook Pro anyways, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Based on those specification, you were never in the market for a MacBook Pro anyways, correct?
I had a 2011 MBP until it died for the third time and Apple did not fix it for lack of parts (in Europe).

Never in the market for anything other than a cMBP.
 
Yes, because I was looking for those specs four years ago.

An 8-core, 64GiB, Vega 56, 2TB NVMe, 2TB SSD laptop would cost 3400 euro.
[doublepost=1542746369][/doublepost]
That was the extreme plan. You could not get a 3.3kg laptop with more than 4 cores, but you could put 2.5TB storage in a compact laptop in 2013. 4TB in 2015. 6TB in 2016. More later but expensive. 32GiB RAM since 2012.

The hard drive vendors have been too lazy for ages.

You could put spinning HDDs in your laptop, but the heat generated dictates how small the chassis can be...32GB presents the same challenges. Back in 2012, DDR3-1600, but you need 4x8GB, since 16GB SO-DIMM came on board closer to late 2015 or even early 2016, IIRC. Again, space for 2 to 4 DIMM sockets plus the heat generated by 4 SO-DIMMs dictates a larger chassis and more robust cooling system, so did most CPUs of that day and even now in the age of 6-core 45w CPUs, heat is an issue. You mentioned compact, which all of these desired features work against. Not to mention the battery and PSU for a laptop to meet your needs would last less than two hours on battery and require a 300w brick to power.

NAND is just now getting to an acceptable place with regard to speed, heat, capacity and cost. Intel has still not followed through and brought us to LPDDR4/x, making us wait until Cannon Lake, which is completely absurd and reeks of pre-planned obsolescence, but I digress. CPUs forge ahead, but only so much can be put inside a 45w-65w TDP.

Your path is unique and difficult and not one Apple will ever be able to fulfill. Good luck!
 
You could put spinning HDDs in your laptop, but the heat generated dictates how small the chassis can be...32GB presents the same challenges. Back in 2012, DDR3-1600, but you need 4x8GB, since 16GB SO-DIMM came on board closer to late 2015 or even early 2016, IIRC. Again, space for 2 to 4 DIMM sockets plus the heat generated by 4 SO-DIMMs dictates a larger chassis and more robust cooling system, so did most CPUs of that day and even now in the age of 6-core 45w CPUs, heat is an issue. You mentioned compact, which all of these desired features work against. Not to mention the battery and PSU for a laptop to meet your needs would last less than two hours on battery and require a 300w brick to power.

NAND is just now getting to an acceptable place with regard to speed, heat, capacity and cost. Intel has still not followed through and brought us to LPDDR4/x, making us wait until Cannon Lake, which is completely absurd and reeks of pre-planned obsolescence, but I digress. CPUs forge ahead, but only so much can be put inside a 45w-65w TDP.

Your path is unique and difficult and not one Apple will ever be able to fulfill. Good luck!
Already in 2011 the W520 weighed 2.6kg and it certainly did not need a 300W power supply. I never really wanted a crummy 3.3kg laptop.
 
[QUOTE="cube, post: 26827636, member: 33943"
An 8-core, 64GiB, Vega 56, 2TB NVMe, 2TB SSD laptop would cost 3400 euro.
[/QUOTE]

You have some very strange ideas about market economy. Or computers in general. Especially since there is no 8-core CPUs or Vega 56 for laptops and 64GB RAM alone costs around 600-700 euro...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
You have some very strange ideas about market economy. Or computers in general. Especially since there is no 8-core CPUs or Vega 56 for laptops and 64GB RAM alone costs around 600-700 euro...
There's an 8-core laptop with a desktop Ryzen and Vega 56 from Acer. But it weighs 4kg. I ran my numbers.

There are also 8-core i9 laptops which weigh 4 kg, but they cost over 3000 euro before upgrades.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.