5600M MBP 16 beat MBP 16 with eGPU + 5700 XT and works out cheaper. eGPU still better?

[joseph.s.jones]

Max Tech just released their video comparison

What do you think? In the UK the eGPU + 5700 XT works out more expensive than the 5600M upgrade. I’m still thinking the eGPU might work out better though for a couple of reasons:

1) The eGPU won’t make the MBP 16 sound like a vacuum cleaner whilst gaming.
2) The GPU in the eGPU enclosure will be replaceable, so in a few years when the processor and RAM are still good but the GPU isn’t cutting it, you can upgrade the eGPU and keep the laptop going for another couple of years. Whereas you’d be stuck with the 5600M.

Can anyone sense check this logic for me please?

 

[DanMan619]

Point 1 i don't think is a very compelling reason to get the eGPU. You'll likely be gaming with headphones on or plugged into other/better speakers at a desk. In general i feel like, long as it's doing its job of keeping the machine cool (or just keeping it from having to harshly throttle), if it's not truly egregious the fan noise doesn't matter unless you are doing work with a client in the room or recording instruments directly into your laptop and need silence. Anecdotal of course, but no one i know ever PC games right on the laptop speakers because basically all laptop speakers sound like garbage (the 16" MBP is one of the very few exceptions to that though to be fair).

Point 2 is a better reason to still go with an eGPU, but it comes down to how long you plan to keep the machine and what you consider "isn't cutting it" to be. In another Max Tech video i saw they did on the 5600M, they were running the 5600M 16 MBP with fortnite at basically maxed out ("Epic") settings at 1080p resolution and running at pretty high settings at the MBP's native resolution hitting high frame rates on both. I would imagine that performance will last you a while before it shows signs of struggling to run games. Even in the machines later years (maybe the 5-7 year range) you'll still be able to get good frame rates if you're willing to go to mid to high settings and not high to max on newer games as they release.

If it were me, by the time the 5600M truly wasn't cutting it would be around when the CPU/RAM wouldn't be cutting it for the other things i use my laptop for and i'd just start considering a new machine altogether at that point. However, if you want to be gaming on max settings all the time even towards "the end", then yeah the replaceable eGPU would probably be the better option down the road. It could extend your use of the machine past the 7 year mark possibly. But also at a certain point, does the thunderbolt cable hold back whatever new eGPU you put in in the future? GPU on chip will always be the faster connection. To me, that's a desktop computer problem that has simple desktop computer solutions.

I'm also a bit biased against eGPUs with laptops though because for me the whole reason to get a laptop is for portable power. An eGPU means anytime i want access to the eGPUs power i have to be tethered to a desk somewhere and I wouldn't be able to guarantee that I'd always have the eGPU with me if that desk was one that's outside of the home. An accessory that size/weight seems terribly inconvenient to carry around. And i don't always want to be at the desk at home either. At that point i'd rather just have a proper desktop + base/mid tier MBP for emergency portable work/gaming. I know not everyone feels that way though.

 

[CalMin]

As an all around solution for pro work flows such as video editing, photos, 3D rendering etc the eGPU seems inconvenient. If you’re buying any MBP Pro (+/- eGPU) for high frame rate gaming you’re doing it wrong.

 

[ctjack]

1) The eGPU won’t make the MBP 16 sound like a vacuum cleaner whilst gaming.

eGPU only works in MacOS. So how many games does MacOS have? No eGPU working in bootcamp under Windows.

2) The GPU in the eGPU enclosure will be replaceable, so in a few years when the processor and RAM are still good but the GPU isn’t cutting it, you can upgrade the eGPU and keep the laptop going for another couple of years. Whereas you’d be stuck with the 5600M.

Do you remember that vega 20 GPU from previous MBP 15? Well it was blown out completely by this new 5300/5500m GPUs of MBP 16.
Same will be the next time.
Next refresh of MBP 16 will blow out current offering 5600m even with the base GPU.
You want to overpay for it? Then go for it.
It might matter for people, who make money on that. Lets take your example: Max Tech is mainly making money by shooting photo/video of weddings. For this purpose he does have Mac Pro. But if we assume, that he lives in state of Washington, but he has to shoot some LA wedding videos and has a lot of series of weddings in CA, he will have to stay there for a while. So MBP 16 with 5600m could be a great choice for him. It will pay for itself.
If you are the same type of person, then go for it. Otherwise you are paying for nothing, since in 1 year this GPU will be outdated and crushed by the next GPU of MBP 16 2021.

 

[higgalls]

I don't think the 5600M will be below the next 16" MacBook Pro refresh's base graphics. Prices for items such as that don't drop THAT quickly especially when they are potentially going Mini LED for next refresh (which will be more expensive).
That being said, I was also trying to figure the same thing out. I ended up going with the 5600M upgrade (I had to just push past the price, because I want something that will last). I have seen that an eGPU isn't as good as it sounds. It all depends on how well a specific app takes advantage of the eGPU. Sure it will be great for some apps/games, but not for all. And I am the sort of person that lugs my laptop around EVERY day between Home and Work, and at Home I am often sitting on the lounge. So an eGPU is not practical for me. If I were to go the path of an eGPU I would possibly consider going the 13" MacBook Pro, particularly if you are going to dock it to a Monitor.

My new MacBook Pro is due to come hopefully this Wednesday, so can't comment on the noise.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 

[joseph.s.jones]

Thanks for the replies so far folks, the discussion is great. And thanks for such a detailed response DanMan619 - that made a lot of sense.

I think I am leaning towards getting the 5600M now actually. My next debate is i7 vs i9. The price difference is minimal but I’m wondering if the i7 would be better. It runs cooler and requires less power, leaving more watts for the GPU within the tight 100W footprint.

I prefer the i9 chip but without a way to underclock it or limit the Turbo Boost speed (unless you want to totally turn turbo boost off) then I’m not sure the i9 is the right choice here. Thoughts?

 

[higgalls]

Thanks for the replies so far folks, the discussion is great. And thanks for such a detailed response DanMan619 - that made a lot of sense.

I think I am leaning towards getting the 5600M now actually. My next debate is i7 vs i9. The price difference is minimal but I’m wondering if the i7 would be better. It runs cooler and requires less power, leaving more watts for the GPU within the tight 100W footprint.

I prefer the i9 chip but without a way to underclock it or limit the Turbo Boost speed (unless you want to totally turn turbo boost off) then I’m not sure the i9 is the right choice here. Thoughts?

Yeah I was trying to figure out i7 vs i9. But I decided max i9. It has more cores and is a bit faster. Some say the i7 is a bit quieter, but who knows?

 

[ctjack]

It runs cooler and requires less power, leaving more watts for the GPU within the tight 100W footprint.

i7 is 6-core CPU. And it is Intel's chip. It will not run cooler with less power and surely doesn't leave more watts to GPU.
Truth is that i9 and i7 are about to eat +90W on their own, but both of them are limited with TDP of 45W.
The only difference that i9 will fill its' room faster and will lower the clock speeds, while i7 will maintain higher clock speeds. That is a tradeoff of 8 cores/lower stable Ghz and 6 cores/higher stable Ghz.

 

[smbu2000]

while the 5600m might be nice, the extra price is too costly IMO. Having a decent GPU (5300m/5500m)and then being able to upgrade your eGPU is a much better option.

I have the base 16” MBP along with a 5700XT. Once big Navi hits then I can easily upgrade that for more performance. I also had this eGPU setup working with my previous 2017 15” MBP, so it isn’t stuck with one MBP.


Barefeats also released their benchmarking results of the 5600m vs the 5700xt to internal display and vs 5700xt to external display.

https://barefeats.com/16-inch-macbook-pro-5600M-versus-5700XT.html

‘We were testing a suggestion that the new Pro 5600M GPU option for the 16-inch MacBook Pro could be as fast as the popular RX 5700 XT desktop GPU. The Pro 5600M was slightly faster running the Geekbench 5 Metal benchmark.

The RX 5700 XT beat the Pro 5600M on all other tests, although the two games needed help from an external display to complete the sweep.”

 

[joseph.s.jones]

while the 5600m might be nice, the extra price is too costly IMO. Having a decent GPU (5300m/5500m)and then being able to upgrade your eGPU is a much better option.

I have the base 16” MBP along with a 5700XT. Once big Navi hits then I can easily upgrade that for more performance. I also had this eGPU setup working with my previous 2017 15” MBP, so it isn’t stuck with one MBP.


Barefeats also released their benchmarking results of the 5600m vs the 5700xt to internal display and vs 5700xt to external display.

https://barefeats.com/16-inch-macbook-pro-5600M-versus-5700XT.html

‘We were testing a suggestion that the new Pro 5600M GPU option for the 16-inch MacBook Pro could be as fast as the popular RX 5700 XT desktop GPU. The Pro 5600M was slightly faster running the Geekbench 5 Metal benchmark.

The RX 5700 XT beat the Pro 5600M on all other tests, although the two games needed help from an external display to complete the sweep.”

This is really interesting. My limited understanding is that the bandwidth cap of TB3 has already been hit with the RX 5700 XT. So would upgrading the GPU in the eGPU in the future actually help?

 

[Dhock_Holiday]

It's just way too expensive, the price to performance just isn't compelling enough to warrant the huge jump in price.

 

[joseph.s.jones]

i7 is 6-core CPU. And it is Intel's chip. It will not run cooler with less power and surely doesn't leave more watts to GPU.
Truth is that i9 and i7 are about to eat +90W on their own, but both of them are limited with TDP of 45W.
The only difference that i9 will fill its' room faster and will lower the clock speeds, while i7 will maintain higher clock speeds. That is a tradeoff of 8 cores/lower stable Ghz and 6 cores/higher stable Ghz.

Under a sustained load, like gaming for example, the i7 will have 6 cores each trying to hit 4.5 GHZ (admittedly I’m guessing it’ll throttle and level out somewhere less than that like 3.X GHZ). Are you saying that an i9 with 8 cores each trying to hit 5GHZ is going to generate the same heat and consume the same power? Assuming a sustained load I don’t see how this is possible.

 

[ctjack]

Are you saying that an i9 with 8 cores each trying to hit 5GHZ is going to generate the same heat and consume the same power?

It will generate more heat, since first 10 seconds it will boost 8 cores at max Ghz, but then eventually will be sustained at less Ghz than i7. It will consume the same amount of power of 45W. This 45W is going to give enough room to boost for i7, and small room for boost for i9.

 

[kohlson]

I think earlier Max Tech/Yurev videos show that the i9 throttles in many situations. Until recently, he recommend the base 15-MBP because for video editing, the i9 throttled and never offered any additional performance over the i7.

 

[JPizzzle]

For those saying that the 5600 is priced too high for what you’re getting, the price isn’t cheap but may not be a bad value if you utilize the graphics card in your day to day computing life. Consider this point from toms hardware:

“This added performance comes at a steep price, of course: $800 to go from the 5300M to the 5600M (or $600 to upgrade from the 5500M 8GB). That brings the total purchase price tag well above $3000. Still, if you care about graphics performance, that's less than 33% (or less) more money for 50% more performance.”

 

[smbu2000]

This is really interesting. My limited understanding is that the bandwidth cap of TB3 has already been hit with the RX 5700 XT. So would upgrading the GPU in the eGPU in the future actually help?

Well there isn’t too much of a performance hit between pcie 3.0 4x and pcie 3.0 16x.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-pci-express-scaling/

Testing with the RTX 2080Ti (most powerful consumer card):

“The performance takes an even bigger hit as you lower bandwidth to PCIe gen 3.0 x4 (comparable to gen 2.0 x8), though still not by the double-digit percentages we were expecting to see. You lose 9% performance compared to gen 3.0 x16 at 1080p, 8% at 1440p, and, surprisingly, just 6% at 4K.”


TB3 will add extra performance degradation, but probably not as much as you might expect especially when used with an external monitor. I had a GTX 1080Ti in my egpu box (Asus XG Station Pro), before I switched over to the 5700XT to be able to use it with macOS and not just bootcamp, and performance was still fine.

 

[venom600]

It's also important to remember that the 5700XT is the best cart NOW. In three months there will be new Navi 2 Radeon cards (the ones the PS5 and Xbox Series X use) that support things like ray tracing and are significantly better performers. I'd bet those cards in an eGPU enclosure would blow the 5600M away in a way that the 5700XT didn't

 

[fireedo]

well just after 4 days bought MBP 16 with 5500M 8GB vram I finally return it and choose to upgrade to the MBP 16 i9, 32GB ram, 2TB ssd and Radeon Pro 5600M, well I hope this will last 3-4 years ... I know I should hoping longer than that but technology progress faster and I like newer hardware

 

[Egregio]

A 5600M HBM2 setup should last 5, if not 10, years. The 5300/5500 were already great for 4K editing.

The only negative being if you wanted to get work done on this laptop, you might not as much since this can play games.