They start at 2399$, $3300 buys the top of the line model.
https://www.microsoftstore.com/stor...ok-with-Performance-Base/productID.5074012200
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Details Radeon Pro Graphics in New 15-inch MacBook Pro Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They start at 2399$, $3300 buys the top of the line model.
https://www.microsoftstore.com/stor...ok-with-Performance-Base/productID.5074012200
The 15" MBP for the same price comes with a 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM, 460 - seemed a fair comparison. For tier below the Surface is cheaper ($100 more for the 460 upgrade on the MBP with otherwise equivalent specs). The one below that has 8GB of RAM, then you're mostly integrated aside from one discrete model with an i5, but no details on the specifics of that GPU. They're usually within a $100 of each other for similar specs, though I imagine most people would rather have a touch enabled display vs the touchbar, there are other differences in ports, display size/quality etc.
Last edited:
They are good for async and opencl, which final cut pro depends on. Apple doesn't care about gaming
[doublepost=1477701062][/doublepost]And its less powerful than the cheapest Pascal from nvidia, but apple doesn't care about gaming so they are fine for pro products that depend on OpenCl
From my link:
"The performance should be therefore a bit slower than the Radeon RX 460, which is similar to the GTX 965M. It is the only card in the MacBook Pro 15 line-up that features more than 2 GB VRAM (Radeon Pro 450 and 455)."
I suppose in some situations the extra RAM might help off-balance the clockspeed. The 965M is 50W vs the 460s 35W, and the 1060 is a significantly higher 75W. The 1050 mobile is rated at 1.28Gflops, same 80Gbps bandwidth, less cores, higher clockspeed, and at 50W... doesn't seem a clear winner.
The 1060 would give significantly better performance, and they could have used the weight savings to put in a beefier battery (the razer blade gets ~5 hours). I'd prefer that, but I can see why they went the route they did. I guess just treat it as an acceptable on the go option, then eGPU if you're at a desk and you need the power. :/
Not going with 32GB RAM is a disappointment, though LPDDR3 goes with the chipset and the Kirby Lake CPUs coming out soon are lacking in some options. Maybe we'll see 32GB LPDDR4 in a spring refresh once the line fleshes out.
Last edited:
What do you mean? Is there an other Apple Inc? Of course it's the Apple you know. Maybe you mean to say, "This is not the Apple I want to know".
Some could say the same about luxury cars - mediocre components inside compared to sports cars and slower overall.
I consider Apple's computers to be luxury computers - you really do not NEED to have them to compute, but they are more comfortable, more attention-to-detailed than your plain HP and slower than the bling-bling gaming laptops.
[doublepost=1477720760][/doublepost]
DDR4 is most likely coming. DDR3 prices keep climbing and DDR4 prices have dropped a lot since introduction. I suspect (pure conjecture) Apple got a great deal on remaining DDR3 stock.
120W, and 150W:
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-470-rx-460-reference-models/
The, ungimped, RX 460 is 75W-ish.
For perspective, here is one of the worlds most efficient/compact 100W coolers:
http://thermolab.co.kr/product_eng/71729?ckattempt=1
TL;DR, its TWICE the height of the MacBookPro.
As Scotty from Star Trek said "I canny change the laws of physics, cap'tain.
What all the "pro's" (3d, 4K+ video) would like to see is a down clocked/undervolted (to keep thermals in check) 1050ti.
At least as a CTO option.
I think what he meant to say is "Welcome to the forum. We don't suppress opinions here, but may express good-natured opposition."
But it is all about the 'experience'
, they are not designing around 'cost'......uhm? Really? Think they do design around profitability at the expense of the Pro user.I disagree, if Apple didn't care about gaming to the full extent that you believe, then why the hell would the make a slide and present it and say this system is 60% better at 'Gaming' now while I agree gaming isn't on their priority i wouldn't go as far as what you're saying that they don't care about gaming.. I mean if that's the case then why do I have this screenshot? And what does it say there in the middle??? (Hint it starts with a G in case you still can't see it because you missed it the first time...)
How about this one?
and this one?
care to explain?
Last edited:
Its faster because Apple have optimised FCP for Intel "Quick Sync" (iGPU graphics) AND AMD's "OpenCL" implementation.
When you put an equivalent nVidia/CUDA card in the mix, you get better performance.
Apple haven't used nVidia GPU's since the 2013 iMac (even with an nVidia card, you have to download and install the CUDA drivers, + a little 'hack' to tell PP to use the GPU).
The reason why the Youtube "shootouts" of FCP vs Premiere 'win' is because the CUDA acceleration hasn't been enabled.
Here's some numbers, of Premiere/AE with CUDA enabled.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...-GPU-Performance-840/#Exportingto4K-SingleGPU
[doublepost=1477725702][/doublepost]
It shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
An 1050ti (downclocked/undervolted), as a CTO, would keep MANY 'pro's' at bay.
Apple's 2013 onwards OpenCL gamble - gamble being that all the software that is CUDA optimised would be rewritten to support OpenCL - has been the fork in the road for pro's that do not use FCPX.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...-GPU-Performance-840/#Exportingto4K-SingleGPU
p.s Pascal lineup has substantially improved OpenCL too.
Best of all worlds, if your toolset is a mix of software vendors.
Last edited:
The razer blade is similar to a unibody macbook pro - 0.88" thick, has a GTX 1080 (8gb video ram), and 32gb ram.
It is called marketing. While their focus isn't gaming, it makes a really pretty data point on a bar graph with a title that will attract attention.
Plus, Apple's version of the Polaris 11 GPU is a Radeon Pro series, not the gaming oriented Rx series. I think an analogy would be - you can game on Quadros and FirePros, but the priority of those cards is not gaming.
I don't think Apple's first priority was gaming for these machines. Gaming may not have been even in the top 3 engineering criteria for the new MBP. Even in the graphics slides, the gaming bench came in 2nd on the list. Graphics is definitely not the first on Apple's priority list, that makes gaming at best, a 3rd priority overall. This is just my interpretation.
Lot of talk about the GPU. I was also disappointed but not surprised. As soon as I saw the side profile I realised that it would not be able to contain anything more powerful than an 965m or equivalent and it seems the 460 will sit in that performance range. My problem with the "pro" range is it should not be the pro. The pro should be a mobile weapon not a mass consumer model.
Secondly, I was very disappointed with the AUD pricing. In 2012 I paid $2400 for the top GPU model. Effectively the same machine with modern performance is now $4,000. It's not a question of affordability but a question of value.
I do look forward to reviews of the 460 performance and heat charateristics. It will be interesting to see how fast it throttles and what the real perfomance is after 60mins of large workloads.
Positives for me are it is a fantastic looking machine that is a great computer in a great package, just not a pro machine.
Secondly, I was very disappointed with the AUD pricing. In 2012 I paid $2400 for the top GPU model. Effectively the same machine with modern performance is now $4,000. It's not a question of affordability but a question of value.
I do look forward to reviews of the 460 performance and heat charateristics. It will be interesting to see how fast it throttles and what the real perfomance is after 60mins of large workloads.
Positives for me are it is a fantastic looking machine that is a great computer in a great package, just not a pro machine.
What is most SHOCKING, is that for $2400, the same price of last years model, they are reducing storage from 512GB to 256GB and keeping the graphics card the same (last year was 960M and the Radeon Pro 460 = 965M)
All for the sake of making the Macbook Pro thinner are we not getting the GTX cards. Consumers fault, or Apple's?
Another question to ask is why TF has Flash based storage not gotten cheaper for 2 years.
All for the sake of making the Macbook Pro thinner are we not getting the GTX cards. Consumers fault, or Apple's?
Another question to ask is why TF has Flash based storage not gotten cheaper for 2 years.
Unless they massively drop the sysreqs for vr, no. Minimum gpu for oculus and htc right now is a gtx 970- and it has nearly double the compute power of the 460(and more than triple the 450)
That's a horrible place to put the trackpad if you're left handed. I assume you can buy a reversed model?http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-blade-pro
GTX 1080, 17" 4K display, 32 GB DDR4, 512 GB PCI-E SSD to 2 TB PCI-E SSD, card reader, thunderbolt 3, HDMI, 3 USB 3, .8" thick.
Thanks! At the time I posted that I could not find the specs of these cards anywhere. I appreciate you looking that up.
So all I have to say, once again, is Apple has made a rubbish product here. How could they ignore VR? It's coming and I imagine creative pros will want to interact with it. Too bad. Missed opportunity. But hey, we have digital function keys for emojis. I know I've been asking for that since 1998....oh wait, no I haven't.
965M does not have 50W TDP. GTX 960M has that level of TDP(65W actually, because it has higher core clocks than DESKTOP version of the same die: GTX 750 Ti, which has 60W TDP). So GTX 965M with more cores, has around 75W TDP.
[doublepost=1477760151][/doublepost]
1. Thickness is thickness. If your design of the laptop does not allow you to put thicker GPU die - you will not put it there, unless you will change the design of whole laptop.
2. Thermals of GTX 1050 are defined by TDP level. It is how much heat GPU outputs. 60W(GTX 1050) is higher value than 35W. So better thermals will have Radeon Pro 460. Of course, GTX 1050 at 35W TDP will have exactly the same level of thermal output. But not the same performance level as at 60W. It might be slower than Radeon Pro 460.
The rest is just your opinion which I respect, and I will not respond to it.
Last edited:
For everyone still losing their bananas over the "ridiculous" pricing of the new Pro lineup -
It's just classic Apple. Why is everyone surprised? The first iPod cost $400 in 2001... that's $550 in today's dollars. Today a smaller, lighter, larger-capacity one costs less. Remember the Lisa, in 1983, that cost $10,000??? Crazy! But it was how Apple did things, and it pushed them forward into the Mac era. Later versions had better components and cost less.
This is how they do it... in a few yrs, the same form factor MacBook Pro will have better components and cost a bit less.
Forbes reminds us this morning.... Remember when the Air was first released, with a traditional spinning hard drive, in 2008, for $1799??? That's the equivalent of over $2000 in today's dollars. For the entry level Air. If you maxed that sucker out with an SSD, it cost $3500. And was super popular. And everyone complained and lost their bananas over the ridiculous price... but tons of people bought them, and it endured, because it was thin and light and innovative. Now the Air has better specs than it did when it first launched, and costs less.
It's just how they roll, people...
It's just classic Apple. Why is everyone surprised? The first iPod cost $400 in 2001... that's $550 in today's dollars. Today a smaller, lighter, larger-capacity one costs less. Remember the Lisa, in 1983, that cost $10,000??? Crazy! But it was how Apple did things, and it pushed them forward into the Mac era. Later versions had better components and cost less.
This is how they do it... in a few yrs, the same form factor MacBook Pro will have better components and cost a bit less.
Forbes reminds us this morning.... Remember when the Air was first released, with a traditional spinning hard drive, in 2008, for $1799??? That's the equivalent of over $2000 in today's dollars. For the entry level Air. If you maxed that sucker out with an SSD, it cost $3500. And was super popular. And everyone complained and lost their bananas over the ridiculous price... but tons of people bought them, and it endured, because it was thin and light and innovative. Now the Air has better specs than it did when it first launched, and costs less.
It's just how they roll, people...
Well, not much really. And it has been longer than 2015. Think about it. We hit 3Ghz 10 years ago and are still hanging out in that neighborhood. Apple doesn't make the processors.
As far as GFX goes, yes, I am sure a high end nvidia SLI rig, cooled with liquid nitrogen and backed up by a Tesla would be considerably faster. This is a laptop. If you want a high end gaming rig, buy one.
As others have pointed out, Radeon offers advantages in Apple's openCL applications like Final Cut. Nvidia's Cuda is nvidia only while openCL is open to any GFX maker.
As far as the higher end cards go like the 480, there is still the power and heat budget to consider as much as the price point. If anyone wants to build a better ecosystem, I am game to switch. However, I really like what I am getting from Apple. Is it the bleeding edge fastest? No. But, it gets out of the way and lets me work most of the time. That is what I want most.
Huh, if it's the same TDW as the 1060 I'm surprised MS went with it. I read 50W somewhere, but another source says 70W, and the 1060 is 75W.
I've made my peace with the GPU choice (upgrading to the 960 at least), just wondering if there's some reason they didn't go with 32GB of LPDDR4 RAM instead of the 16GB LPDDR3 (and whether it might be good to wait for a hoped quiet spring refresh with the extra RAM on Kaby Lake and perhaps some hardware refinements to the new model).
I'm shocked that people are so shocked. The "Pro" is just branding, it's not actually geared toward professionals nor has it been for a long time. This is very obvious when the primary design goals is making the MBP as thin as possible, making it as light as possible, and making it have as long of battery life as possible. You can't prioritize those things and prioritize performance at the same time.
The reality of it is, the "pro" demographic they are going after are basically your college english majors who may have to carry it around in their backpack all day.
I mean they said they capped it to 16GB of ram because they wouldn't have gotten their 10 hour of internet surfing battery life for christ sake.
As much as people don't like to hear it, the only thing you can do is not buy it. With that being said, it still wouldn't do any good as there are a lot of people who will get pulled into the branding of apple and the "pro" badging.
The reality of it is, the "pro" demographic they are going after are basically your college english majors who may have to carry it around in their backpack all day.
I mean they said they capped it to 16GB of ram because they wouldn't have gotten their 10 hour of internet surfing battery life for christ sake.
As much as people don't like to hear it, the only thing you can do is not buy it. With that being said, it still wouldn't do any good as there are a lot of people who will get pulled into the branding of apple and the "pro" badging.
Ya, you're probably right. I just remember when I was a "Pro" - doing serious, professional video editing on a full-blown linear system - doing AB Roll with multiple high-end, "Pro" Panasonic S-VHS decks and an analogue switcher - all hooked into a cutting edge Amiga digital-effects processor. That was in the MID 90's... and when AVID came out with consumer non-linear (for like $25,000) - we all thought that it couldn't get any better. That friggin AVID setup took up half of a large room, and took HOURS to digitize footage. Now this 3-pound laptop does it in my airplane seat in a fraction of the time - in 4K instead of 420interlaced - and we're all SO DAMNED concerned - that it ain't technically 'Pro'.
Whatever. For the top 1% of real Pros - that's probably true. For movie studios and broadcast TV producers, ok - fine. You need something more 'Pro'. For everyone else cranking out Keynotes and sales/promotional/educational vids - I dare say that these computers are amazing - and plenty 'Pro' enough.