It seems like most of the reviews so far are using machines with the 450 or 455, has anyone seen any good data on the 460?
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.
Are they any Radeon Pro 460 benchmarks out yet?
- Thread starter drvelocity
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 460 is going to be somewhere around the 965M-970M on Invidia. The 965M was basically the lowest, of the lowest in regards to performance cards. It'll hold it's own, but it's nothing magical in any way, shape or form.
I just received mine today with the 460, what kind of benchmarks do you want?
I'm walking out of UPS with mine too right now. Let us know what you want to see.
And we're in. I'll get to these asap as soon as I'm out of the car.
Highly doubt it - the 965M even though a generation old is way stronger than the weakling AMD mobile offerings and the typical power effecient chips that Apple picks from. I'd say you'd be lucky to get maybe 75-80% of the 965M performance. The 965M is comparable to the desktop RX 460 so the mobile version is going to fall short.
Wow really? I was being conservative stating the 965 lol... that's going to suck for a lot of MacBook Pro owners!
tFLOP-wise the Radeon 460 is on-par with nVidias' 965
Radeon Pro 455 already has a higher Cinebench Score than the 965m
SOURCE: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5cvzrq/first_radeon_pro_455_cinebench_numbers/
[doublepost=1479143320][/doublepost]
He's wrong. Radeon Pro 455 is scoring higher than the 965m in Cinebench. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5cvzrq/first_radeon_pro_455_cinebench_numbers/
[doublepost=1479143372][/doublepost]
You cannot compare Tflops across various GPU Lines and especially not across AMD and Nvidia
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/compute/227877
This suggests slightly (4%) worse in OpenCL than 965m.
This suggests slightly (4%) worse in OpenCL than 965m.
Last edited:
The 965M scores over 90 in Cinebench R15: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-965M.134120.0.html
And Cinebench is not necessarily very reliable benchmark.
All in all, I bet that the 455 will be slightly faster than the 950M and 460 slightly faster than 960M.
For some reason it kept forcing 1680x1050 even after I selected 1920x1080 multiple times. Also, am I supposed to be keeping the settings default like quality etc? This is valley on the 460 despite being at 1680x1050. I'll try again in a sec, going to LuxMark next.
[doublepost=1479145005][/doublepost]LuxMark result 6023 on GPUs only (both the Intel and the Pro 460 were checked off, CPU was not checked)
[doublepost=1479145005][/doublepost]LuxMark result 6023 on GPUs only (both the Intel and the Pro 460 were checked off, CPU was not checked)
Attachments
Attachments
OS X, no way I could get Windows installed this quickly - it's 9am here on the west coast. This is a factory fresh 15" TB BTO model.
@fs454 Thank you! The retina screen must have force-scaled to 1680x1050. You can select Custom Preset and change Quality to Ultra, Anti-aliasing to x8, and specify the resolution to 1680x1050. Same thing with Heaven with the addition of Tessellation to Extreme.
This is Luxmark result of a desktop RX 460 for comparison.
This is Luxmark result of a desktop RX 460 for comparison.
Last edited:
Then we don't know
The driver is a big unknown. With OS X score of 85.44fps, the Windows score could be well over 100.
So in the end it is on par with GTX 965M, if we take out the difference in performance between macOS and Windows.
What I would be interested in seeing is the benchmarks for Heroes of the Storm and Overwatch Ultra Settings in 1080p. That would help us to compare it RX 460(desktop).
What I would be interested in seeing is the benchmarks for Heroes of the Storm and Overwatch Ultra Settings in 1080p. That would help us to compare it RX 460(desktop).