AMD Details Radeon Pro Graphics in New 15-inch MacBook Pro Models

[NT1440]

MacBook Pros? I think not. Of course work gets done with macs and as an employee if it takes a few minutes to get render something its not a big deal. I've been responsible as CTO for probably the same infrastructure you are talking about (that is live recording and editing HD video), in fact, I'll bet I know exactly who you are talking about as it is a really small industry and our supplier, for both Apple and Sony HD video products was the largest in the country, was very talkative about the sports industry. But we had off line rendering servers that ran full tilt and taxed Apple's products to the max. In fact, most of the time final rendering was queued and ran overnight. Now none of the final rendering is done on Apple products for a reason. Sure Apple products are still sometimes used for workstations, but most video users are moving on for a reason. That reason is that the hardware is too limited. BTW, we were recording and subsequently editing DVCPro HD format at about 7GB per min 10 hours per day, 6 days per week. That is about 26 TB per week of new content and editing took 4 to 6 weeks.

People don't complain when it does no good, they just get on with their job. So based on my experience you should look a little closer if you really want to know.

Macbook Pro's and Mac Pros. Of course most of the have duty rendering is done on servers, any company this large with constant video output would be stupid to have that run locally on machines.

I don't know what you mean by moving on though, everyone here is on a 3 year leasing cycle. You get a machine, you use it.

 

[aeshaettr_]

So the top end mobile MBP AMD GPU option offers less then 25% Teraflop performance of the top end nVidia mobile pascal option which has 7.9 TFLOPS of peak performance - with CUDA support AND triple the video memory.

And even with eGPU options for the greater then 6GB video memory + CUDA support pros need, the top end MBP is shackled by the same 16GB system RAM limit it has had for going on 6 years.

Way to go Timmy! Your courage™ is awesome

I'm lucky enough to be in this position but I will limit my celebrations to jumping up and down. Last time I tried a cartwheel I gave myself a hernia.

From all the bitterness in this forum as of late, your comment is pure gold. Thank you ;-)

 

[Maxx Power]

I don't buy this as a legitimate excuse to not use DDR4. This is laptop that is at the upper most price range. Other laptops $1000 cheaper use DDR4. It just can't be support/supply. As for the latency, why are we limiting this to the same speed? You can buy 16GB of 3000 Mhz laptop DDR4 on Newegg for just about the same price as the more widely available 2400/2133 speeds (and if I can buy it on newegg you think Apple, of all things, could get some too). Maybe its an extra $20, but for a computer that's probably going to be selling for about $3000 in most cases... so what? The benefits of Skylake plus super fast RAM have been shown to be significant. 2133 DDR3 is needlessly hamstringing this computer.

I'm not buying a MBP until we see at least 3000 DDR4 in it, or I can just put my own RAM in it again. Lots of other high end laptops are also shipping with 2133, but it is DDR4 and its still user serviceable. I don't want to be stuck on 2133 DDR3 for the next 4 years....

It is just a conjecture in the presence of no evidence whatsoever. I have not seen any DDR4-equipped Skylake laptops of a similar form factor from any rivals that use speeds faster than 2133 Mhz (Dell's XPS, for example, tops at 2133 Mhz). Thus, I think we're not gaining any more performance at this stage by going to DDR4 at the same speed. However, the DDR3 part MAY offer lower latency and thus a slight performance advantage. Previous jumps (DDR3 from DDR2 from DDR) at the same speed always showed decreases in performance on average due to increased latencies of the new memory type.

 

[peteo]

Should have been a GTX 1050 or better in the new MacBook Pro.

Why? the GTX 1050 has 1.8 TFLOPs same as the AMD 460

 

[matthew856]

"Comparable"
"Twice the weight and looking more like a bigtop tent than a laptop"

Pick one

Looks like the Razor Blade weighs 4.3 lbs for the QHD model.
http://www.razerzone.com/store/razer-blade

 

[wallysb01]

It is just a conjecture in the presence of no evidence whatsoever. I have not seen any DDR4-equipped Skylake laptops of a similar form factor from any rivals that use speeds faster than 2133 Mhz (Dell's XPS, for example, tops at 2133 Mhz). Thus, I think we're not gaining any more performance at this stage by going to DDR4 at the same speed. However, the DDR3 part MAY offer lower latency and thus a slight performance advantage. Previous jumps (DDR3 from DDR2 from DDR) at the same speed always showed decreases in performance on average due to increased latencies of the new memory type.

Right, but RAM isn't serviceable in Apple computers, so you're stuck with it on the MBP, but not if you buy from another vendor. That's the problem I have. Clearly the RAM at higher speeds (and capacities) is there and the benefits of it are fairly substantial for a relatively cheap part. However, Apple has chosen to lock you in to 2012 tech for a computer that most people are probably going to want to use until about 2020...

With other models, you're merely forced to buy the stock RAM and upgrade yourself if you want it. In this case, I just don't think the "but everyone else is doing it" defense holds much water.

 

[DominikHoffmann]

No I meant this one...

Try this search: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...7P3PAhVn1oMKHarjCVIQ2A4IHygE&biw=1310&bih=939

 

[peteo]

So the top end mobile MBP AMD GPU option offers less then 25% Teraflop performance of the top end nVidia mobile pascal option which has 7.9 TFLOPS of peak performance - with CUDA support AND triple the video memory.

And even with eGPU options for the greater then 6GB video memory + CUDA support pros need, the top end MBP is shackled by the same 16GB system RAM limit it has had for going on 6 years.

Way to go Timmy! Your courage™ is awesome

You can get one of these windows systems with a 1080 pascal for as low as 2799. granted its 8 pounds! and has 1 TB spinning drive (+128 SDD) a and only 1080p screen.
In-fact there's not one laptop with a 1080 available right now that is less than 8 pounds!

There is a laptop with a 1070 (8gb), 3840 x 2160 res, 1TB HD and 512 SSD, i7 (6th gen)16gb. that weights 5.28 pounds only $2249 So if you do not care about weight or design there's plenty of PC options.


You can get a msi stealth pro with a 1060 mobile (3.5 tflops) that weights less than 4 pounds has a 3840 x 2160 screen. Core i7 (6th gen) 1TB HD + 512 SSD 16mb ram (up-gradable to 32mb) 3 usb C + 1 HDMI 2 for 1999. Battery life is only 5 hours just browsing/office tasks. Gaming of course kills it, around 2 hours.

 

[dimensional]

So disappointed in this latest round of MacBook Pros.

Seems like Microsoft is really going for the creative and developer markets with the pen support (creatives) and ubuntu support (developers).

Seriously considering a Razer product running Windows 10 at this point after spending close to $50,000 on Mac products over the last 15 years.

 

[Sedare]

Here are my initial reactions opinions and it's mostly questions based on the limited knowledge I have of the technologies used and then the hypothesized answers I came up with in my head based on the research I've done:

Why didn't they use a higher tier GPU or even go with Nvidia?
Thermals and cost? They've been rocking AMD's jock on the Pro line for a bit now and Polaris is nice, and runs at 14nm which Nvidia hasn't hit yet (Pascal is 16nm, but not sure how much 2nm affects thing). Thermals could be an issue but Nvidia runs cooler on the new 10xx line at least for desktop. Power consumption is another factor, but as this is a Pro level latptop I would have liked to have seen a higher tier card with more VRAM and possibly GDDR5x instead of normal GDDR5. AMD doesn't even have a section on their webpage for the 460 (mac edition):

http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/notebook/r9-m200

Ultimately it comes down to how well the software and hardware are integrated to affect performance and Apple is usually king at this. Gaming will not be optimal as on a dedicated gaming latpop but Final Cut, Logic Pro, etc ought to run butter smooth.

Why didn't they go with DDR4?
I can't find good materials over the improvements of LPDDR3 vs LPDDR4. Some here have said lower latency with DDR3 while maintaining same frequency makes DDR3 better. However DDR4 uses less energy which equates to lower heat output, which allows apple to keep thermals down and profiles smaller. I think DDR4 should have been used. I would have liked to have seen a 32GB option here btw. Creative apps love RAM. The more you can throw at them the better. This was a huge misstep by not allowing for a 16x2 DIMM upgrade option (x2 to maintain dual-channel functionality for better performance).

Why didn't they upgrade the iMessage camera to 1080p?
This one baffled me. I mean c'mon. Full HD has become more of a standard for web cams and can be bought relatively cheaply as an external. To keep peripherals to a minimum this thing should have been made into a 1080p cam. Wireless AC can handle full HD streaming.

Price to performance?
How much of an "Apple tax" are we paying? I configured an MBPro with some software like LogicPro, accessory cables, and apple care at over 4700 bucks--this was going with most upgrades except storage at 1TB instead of 2.

I can order The New Razer 14" latptop with an Nvidia GTX1060 with 6GB of GDDR5 and 4k display (not true 4k), 16GB of DDR4 at 2600 bucks. Adobe equivalents of FinalCut and LogicPro (although you get FL Studio for free which is a $199.99 value) added software would jack this up considerably and I noticed no extended warranty option. You can also buy the Razer Core to add an external GPU for more power (then plug into full monitor).

Dell has an XPS laptop that is comparable hardware wise (except GTX960 gpu) but apparently their web design is stuck in 2005 still and this was a bitch to find. It's still cheaper as well. There is also an option for 32GB of RAM.

HP and ASUS offer entirely too many friggin' options to sift through. God these morons need to limit SKUs and improve webdesign.


Conclusion:
Apple's hardware is not 100% up to snuff and I don't think it ever has been. As far as I can remember, their GPU options have never been top-tier or even close to it. There should be more RAM, and the question of ddr4 lingers; and the GPU line-up might not be the best choice. Also configurable options should have been expanded to add more RAM and an even higher tier GPU. But ultimately Apple integrates the hardware they use with the OS and software developed by them and 3rd parties so performance for productivity/creative based applications is stellar. Games may not run the best, but editing film, photos, etc. ought to be.

Price-wise: I do think it's a bit expensive. I'd like to see at least a $500 price drop, but otherwise I think the new version is worth the price of entry. Ultimately, I may go to my local Apple Store and tell them to sell me on the MBPro versus the Razer and see what they say.

I look forward to the reviews and the iFixit tear down. I'd like to see reviews compare the 15" to previous MBPros and what is currently available on the Windows side of things for such things as film editing, and other creative activities. Maybe some gaming too, but I have my custom built PC for gaming.

 

[\-V-/]

You do realise you're not even talking about the same line of GPU's right? You're talking about the RX line, this is the Radeon Pro line, Apple is the first to use it - it only launched yesterday. Perhaps you should read this - http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-radeon-pro-400-series-revealed-after-macbook-pro/

You're talking about gamers graphics cards, further more the one you think should be included draws 150w hahaha, you have no idea what you're talking about. Even the RX 460 draws 75w and that couldn't be used in a MacBook Pro, it'd run out of battery in about 40 minutes. The power draw on the RP 460 (which IS the top of the line in this range) is 35w.

It's so annoying how people rant about things they don't understand on here (mainly which GPU's match with which CPU and the like) and get loads of likes by spreading the misinformation.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. The 460 Pro in the MBP is comparable to the RX 460. At no point has anyone said they stuck an unmodified desktop GPU in anything. That's absurd. And comparing the power draw of a desktop GPU to a modified mobile GPU is also ridiculous. Obviously modifications need to be made to accommodate hardware. And no, the battery wouldn't last 40 minutes. And no, the 460 is most certainly not the top of the line anything at 1.8 Teraflops. It's so annoying how in the midst of this failed attempt to call me out on something that you also made up information to try and make some sort of point and are yet again further pushing the idea that it's just okay for Apple to keep putting underpowered components and charging an insane premium for them. That's why we're here in the first place. We don't even need to talk about the GPU here. The PSU they use is actually not even good enough to get the full potential out of their own hardware. They're literally gimping their own hardware for the sake of thinness. Nobody asked for these things to keep getting thinner and thinner. Does it look nice? Sure does. But at the expense of more powerful hardware, it seems ridiculous. And if you're arguing that the 460 is in any way top of the line, I don't know what to tell you. It's top of the line for what Apple is offering, which isn't saying anything. if you're annoyed by the current state of things that are actually happening and it's what's being discussed, that's on you. But please don't sit there and act like the problem isn't real. The only person spreading misinformation here is you. "40 minutes of battery" ... gimme a break.
[doublepost=1477671313][/doublepost]

This isn't the RX line. This is the Radeon Pro line. The Radeon Pro line is meant more for workbench computers, while the RX line is meant more for gamers.

Good grief. Everyone here is aware of that. Do you feel better now? Do you feel like you've adequately defended Apple's use of underpowered components?
[doublepost=1477671394][/doublepost]

The 4K and 5K iMacs choke? In what? Link/source?

Who has complained that the 4K and 5K iMacs are unable to handle workflows, above and beyond your complaints in these forums?

People that actually use them, like myself. Just because you haven't read about or heard of it doesn't magically mean it isn't an issue.

 

[scoobs69]

You just don't need that kind of processing power to post produce a movie of you taking a selfie with your friends. Or editing a picture of someone of someone jumping up and down on top of a hill taken with your iPhone. Apple is about instant gratification these days, not about using their products to get real work done.

Oh FFS!

 

[CooKieMoNs7eR]

Try this search: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...7P3PAhVn1oMKHarjCVIQ2A4IHygE&biw=1310&bih=939

I was looking to find a retina one but thanks

 

[NNJJ]

I've all but decided that it would be better to buy a mid-2015 15" MBP with 16GB RAM and the 512 or 1TB SSD. Can anyone provide convincing argument why this doesn't make way more financial sense than purchasing the new $1999 13" MBP?
I'm upgrading from a 2010 MBP. I don't need to have the Touch Bar. A 2015 retina will look beautiful, so I don't need this new 2016 screen.
This way I keep all the old ports that people are sad about losing, I get a machine with specs that pretty much match this new release, and I save almost $1000. Am I missing something? I'd think the 2015 machine I'm describing should give me at least 4 years of solid performance. The most resource-intense work I do these days is video editing in iMovie.
And are we assuming that the 2016 MBPs will have soldered everything in, making them un-upgradeable?
Sound off!

 

[koyoot]

Here are my initial reactions opinions and it's mostly questions based on the limited knowledge I have of the technologies used and then the hypothesized answers I came up with in my head based on the research I've done:

Why didn't they use a higher tier GPU or even go with Nvidia?
Thermals and cost? They've been rocking AMD's jock on the Pro line for a bit now and Polaris is nice, and runs at 14nm which Nvidia hasn't hit yet (Pascal is 16nm, but not sure how much 2nm affects thing). Thermals could be an issue but Nvidia runs cooler on the new 10xx line at least for desktop. Power consumption is another factor, but as this is a Pro level latptop I would have liked to have seen a higher tier card with more VRAM and possibly GDDR5x instead of normal GDDR5. AMD doesn't even have a section on their webpage for the 460 (mac edition):

http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/notebook/r9-m200

Ultimately it comes down to how well the software and hardware are integrated to affect performance and Apple is usually king at this. Gaming will not be optimal as on a dedicated gaming latpop but Final Cut, Logic Pro, etc ought to run butter smooth.

Why didn't they go with DDR4?
I can't find good materials over the improvements of LPDDR3 vs LPDDR4. Some here have said lower latency with DDR3 while maintaining same frequency makes DDR3 better. However DDR4 uses less energy which equates to lower heat output, which allows apple to keep thermals down and profiles smaller. I think DDR4 should have been used. I would have liked to have seen a 32GB option here btw. Creative apps love RAM. The more you can throw at them the better. This was a huge misstep by not allowing for a 16x2 DIMM upgrade option (x2 to maintain dual-channel functionality for better performance).

Why didn't they upgrade the iMessage camera to 1080p?
This one baffled me. I mean c'mon. Full HD has become more of a standard for web cams and can be bought relatively cheaply as an external. To keep peripherals to a minimum this thing should have been made into a 1080p cam. Wireless AC can handle full HD streaming.

Price to performance?
How much of an "Apple tax" are we paying? I configured an MBPro with some software like LogicPro, accessory cables, and apple care at over 4700 bucks--this was going with most upgrades except storage at 1TB instead of 2.

I can order The New Razer 14" latptop with an Nvidia GTX1060 with 6GB of GDDR5 and 4k display (not true 4k), 16GB of DDR4 at 2600 bucks. Adobe equivalents of FinalCut and LogicPro (although you get FL Studio for free which is a $199.99 value) added software would jack this up considerably and I noticed no extended warranty option. You can also buy the Razer Core to add an external GPU for more power (then plug into full monitor).

Dell has an XPS laptop that is comparable hardware wise (except GTX960 gpu) but apparently their web design is stuck in 2005 still and this was a bitch to find. It's still cheaper as well. There is also an option for 32GB of RAM.

HP and ASUS offer entirely too many friggin' options to sift through. God these morons need to limit SKUs and improve webdesign.


Conclusion:
Apple's hardware is not 100% up to snuff and I don't think it ever has been. As far as I can remember, their GPU options have never been top-tier or even close to it. There should be more RAM, and the question of ddr4 lingers; and the GPU line-up might not be the best choice. Also configurable options should have been expanded to add more RAM and an even higher tier GPU. But ultimately Apple integrates the hardware they use with the OS and software developed by them and 3rd parties so performance for productivity/creative based applications is stellar. Games may not run the best, but editing film, photos, etc. ought to be.

Price-wise: I do think it's a bit expensive. I'd like to see at least a $500 price drop, but otherwise I think the new version is worth the price of entry. Ultimately, I may go to my local Apple Store and tell them to sell me on the MBPro versus the Razer and see what they say.

I look forward to the reviews and the iFixit tear down. I'd like to see reviews compare the 15" to previous MBPros and what is currently available on the Windows side of things for such things as film editing, and other creative activities. Maybe some gaming too, but I have my custom built PC for gaming.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000563435

Lisa Su claims that AMD developed Polaris with help of Apple. Similar thing to LG Displays.

 

[Pablo.A.Pucci]

Pros
4GB VRam
Faster Ports
new design brighter display
new keyboard butterfly 2.0
new speakers
I really like the much bigger touch pad
Faster hard drive

Cons
No 32GB Ram capability (this for me it´s crucial, and for the price, they should give us all the ram)
No 4K Display (HP and Lenovo offers 4k displays in their mobile workstations)
No Magsafe (This was like a signature on the Mac laptops)
Adaptors for everything

If Apple thinks that putting 32GB ram would make the iMac or the Mac Pro look less desirable, just increase the iMac and Mac Pro capabilities.

 

[HappyMacGuy]

I don't buy this as a legitimate excuse to not use DDR4. This is laptop that is at the upper most price range. Other laptops $1000 cheaper use DDR4."

It's because you're paying for the "Magic Bar" which you probably won't use. If they had proper ram and enough of it then it would even cost more. We're the guinea pigs.

 

[matthew856]

And? There's nothing preventing you from using those other software packages.

FCPX is much faster than Premier. The interface looks like a toy, but it gets me through the work I need to do quickly- even on an old machine. I am forced to teach Premier because Adobe is winning institutionally with their CC licensing.

 

[Maxx Power]

Right, but RAM isn't serviceable in Apple computers, so you're stuck with it on the MBP, but not if you buy from another vendor. That's the problem I have. Clearly the RAM at higher speeds (and capacities) is there and the benefits of it are fairly substantial for a relatively cheap part. However, Apple has chosen to lock you in to 2012 tech for a computer that most people are probably going to want to use until about 2020...

With other models, you're merely forced to buy the stock RAM and upgrade yourself if you want it. In this case, I just don't think the "but everyone else is doing it" defense holds much water.

I think some serviceability is what a lot of people are asking for. Apple may or may not address that in the future. Certainly, for the thin form factor, SODIMMs are out of the question at the moment. I think the biggest benefit for DDR4 this generation is for the maximum capacity of 32GB across 2 SODIMMs, but you can't reap this benefit yet from Apple. I think at some point of time, the benefit of the MacOS eco-system may outweigh its handicaps. I am in support of another new machine from Apple that incorporates SODIMM slots and M.2 interfaces for both the SSD and Wifi.

 

[bobdobalina]

edit

 

[Maxx Power]

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000563435

Lisa Su claims that AMD developed Polaris with help of Apple. Similar thing to LG Displays.

That's very interesting. Let's see how this plays out down the road. It could be that the architecture is well optimized for Apple's new upcoming APIs.

 

[\-V-/]

FCPX is much faster than Premier. The interface looks like a toy, but it gets me through the work I need to do quickly- even on an old machine. I am forced to teach Premier because Adobe is winning institutionally with their CC licensing.

Faster on a Mac, yes.

Also, Adobe licensing is a nightmare and their multi-license installers are horrible. Easily the most unintuitive and horrible process I've ever experienced.

 

[AxoNeuron]

People keep saying that Apple can't use a higher performance Nvidia card because of battery concerns, but I think this is nonsense.

When I bought the original rMBP in 2012, it had an nvidia 650m. In order to save power, it would cut off power to the dGPU whenever possible and use the integrated GPU. Apple could easily have integrated a 1060 and used the same technique.

 

[koyoot]

People keep saying that Apple can't use a higher performance Nvidia card because of battery concerns, but I think this is nonsense.

When I bought the original rMBP in 2012, it had an nvidia 650m. In order to save power, it would cut off power to the dGPU whenever possible and use the integrated GPU. Apple could easily have integrated a 1060 and used the same technique.

No, because there are two technical reasons why there is no Nvidia GPU in MBP. Pursuit of thinness. Every part of computer must be as thin as possible including the GPUs. Secondly. Power Supply. It has only 87W. GTX 1060 alone has 65W thermal envelope. Radeon Pro 460 has 35W TDP, however I believe actual TDP(power gate) in BIOS is lower.

Thirdly. Apple co-engineered the Polaris GPUs with AMD.
Fourthly - Apple forced out Nvidia from any of their computers because of lawsuit that Nvidia threatened Apple with, about IP. There will be no Nvidia Mac's for foreseeable future. The other two reasons are political reasons.

 

[darkloki]

I think my biggest concern isn't really the GPU but the lack of ports to support peripherals. Razer got alot of Flame for their lack of an SD Card, well Apple didn't just remove the SD Card, lol, they removed USB 2.0, the SD Card, and the HDMI Port. How many people actually use USB-C for everything? including thumb drives? Or USB-C to HDMI? I realize that Macbook standard users have been doing that for a while now, but this is the Macbook Pro 15 inch. Talk to any previous Macbook Pro User and ask them "How many Adapters do you carry and use?" "How many do you expect to Carry or have on you?" and then you'll have your quick answer.

Yeah the system might be thinner but just start thinking the number of adapters that you're now going to own, you can't even plug your brand new awesome Iphone 7 to this thing without an adapter, lol...

I could easily envision myself having 3 adapters for this thing, and then the question I have is the obvious one, 'Is it worth it?' especially when I'm paying top dollar...