Are they any Radeon Pro 460 benchmarks out yet?

[zhenya]

You're completely wrong on both accounts.

On Windows 10, if you go to Control Panel\Appearance and Personalization\Display, there's a link for scaling. You can choose a lot of values (100% - 125% - 150% etc) or type in your own, e.g. 123%.

Scaling is also per-monitor. I use simultaneously a 27" 5k display, with 175% scaling and my older 1920x1200 24" display, with 100% scaling. Except for when a window is in between them, scaling works fine in either and you can drag a window from one to the other, and when it settles it's scaled correctly.

Even more, I remote desktop into another Windows 10 machine, and I use both monitors, and scaling/dragging through RDP works exactly the same.

While you are correct that you can choose any scaling value you like, and to some extent are correct that it will scale on a per-monitor basis, scaling with displays of significantly differing DPI's is still fundamentally broken in Windows 10 because the scaling value is set by the primary screen when you log on to the device. So if you are away from your monitor when you log in, the scaling value will be set to the laptop's screen. When you connect to your monitor, the elements on the monitor will not be scaled natively, and will be blurry. The opposite will happen if you are connected to the monitor at log in, and then disconnect the monitor to go mobile.

The only way to 'fix' it is to log out again.

 

[symphara]

While you are correct that you can choose any scaling value you like, and to some extent are correct that it will scale on a per-monitor basis, scaling with displays of significantly differing DPI's is still fundamentally broken in Windows 10 because the scaling value is set by the primary screen when you log on to the device. So if you are away from your monitor when you log in, the scaling value will be set to the laptop's screen. When you connect to your monitor, the elements on the monitor will not be scaled natively, and will be blurry. The opposite will happen if you are connected to the monitor at log in, and then disconnect the monitor to go mobile.

The only way to 'fix' it is to log out again.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I tried both monitors as my primary monitor (and that's the one you log in on), and I assure you this had no effect on scaling, which is per-monitor. My displays have significantly different DPI and I have no problems.

In fact I was quite nervous about buying the 5k monitor, having read all about how terrible Windows is supposed to be, but I was very pleasantly surprised by how Windows 10 has handled this. It's not flawless - the biggest problem I have is full-screen gaming on the high-DPI monitor sometimes works and sometimes doesn't produce an image, but I discovered it works fine in full-screen-windowed mode. But then my graphics card is pretty old too, I'm waiting for the 1080Ti to upgrade.

 

[zhenya]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I tried both monitors as my primary monitor (and that's the one you log in on), and I assure you this had no effect on scaling, which is per-monitor. My displays have significantly different DPI and I have no problems.

In fact I was quite nervous about buying the 5k monitor, having read all about how terrible Windows is supposed to be, but I was very pleasantly surprised by how Windows 10 has handled this. It's not flawless - the biggest problem I have is full-screen gaming on the high-DPI monitor sometimes works and sometimes doesn't produce an image, but I discovered it works fine in full-screen-windowed mode. But then my graphics card is pretty old too, I'm waiting for the 1080Ti to upgrade.

This is a fundamental problem with how Windows scales, and cannot be fixed until all applications update how they process requests about the connected monitors size, resolution, and DPI. (Which really means it'll never happen). Most legacy programs only make this call once, the first time they launch, then cache that in memory. This means that if you open a legacy program on your laptop, then connect a monitor of differing DPI, and move the program to that monitor, it will be blurry. The only way to fix it is to log out/in with the monitors you want connected/disconnected.

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com...hanges-for-the-windows-10-anniversary-update/

 

[hans1972]

There weren't laptops with 32GB on RAM in the past period. Now they are. The NEW MacBook Pro doesn't have it. Times have changed and the new release hasn't kept up with the industry!

Professional once as 16GB, now it takes 32GB. No 32GB? Not professional anymore! Got it?

You could get 32Gb of RAM in a notebook in 2010. And the first notebooks with 64Gb RAM came out in 2015.

 

[aevan]

You're completely wrong on both accounts.

On Windows 10, if you go to Control Panel\Appearance and Personalization\Display, there's a link for scaling. You can choose a lot of values (100% - 125% - 150% etc) or type in your own, e.g. 123%.

I'm not wrong. Of course that Windows has lot of values - I know that, but Photoshop for Windows does NOT use OS scaling (like the Mac version). Instead, it has its custom scale with a setting within the app itself, and it only supports two modes 100% and 200%.

You can find people complaining about the lack of 150% option here (which is very useful and is equivalent with "more space" option under macOS)
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1686197

Also, it doesn't scale correctly between monitors (apps that use Windows scaling do, but not Photoshop). In other words, if you move parts of Photoshop (like tools or PSD document windows) on a non-hidpi monitor, they are comically large. This is not Microsoft's fault, it's up to Adobe, but that doesn't change the fact it doesn't work.

Same with Application Frame.

I'm sorry to shatter your hopes here, but Photoshop works better on a Mac.
[doublepost=1479609254][/doublepost]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I tried both monitors as my primary monitor (and that's the one you log in on), and I assure you this had no effect on scaling, which is per-monitor. My displays have significantly different DPI and I have no problems.

It really depends on the app. Some work fine, but try changing scaling in, say, Autodesk apps, like 3dsmax. It looks messed up until you log out (text changes size but buttons remain the same, etc). Same with a lot of unoptimized apps. For example, Evernote was completely broken on hidpi until the latest version came out a few months ago.

After all this time, hidpi scaling is still a mess on Windows. You're lucky you obviously don't use any of the apps that work bad.

I'm not against Windows - but there are things that simply don't work as well compared to macOS. But it's always the same with fans of that OS, every time I say what doesn't work, I hear something "I never encountered that problem". That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, though.

 

[symphara]

This is a fundamental problem with how Windows scales, and cannot be fixed until all applications update how they process requests about the connected monitors size, resolution, and DPI. (Which really means it'll never happen). Most legacy programs only make this call once, the first time they launch, then cache that in memory. This means that if you open a legacy program on your laptop, then connect a monitor of differing DPI, and move the program to that monitor, it will be blurry. The only way to fix it is to log out/in with the monitors you want connected/disconnected.

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com...hanges-for-the-windows-10-anniversary-update/

Again, this is not my experience. I don't have a laptop with Win10 but an actual desktop with two monitors connected to it as described. It works fine.

For example, I use rxvt terminals (from an old MinGW install) and this is about as legacy as it gets. They work perfectly and if they are moved between the low and high dpi monitors they rescale fine.

I can see that the Blizzard battle.net application is legacy (it's ever so slightly fuzzy on the high dpi screen). Looks fine moved on the low dpi screen. Apps do not take the dpi scaling from the monitor they're launched on, but from the monitor they're 50% in. You can see this when dragging windows between them, they rescale when half the window passes into the other screen.

I have eclipse using two windows - I keep one in the high dpi monitor and one in the low dpi monitor. Same app. Works perfectly.

So what you seem to be talking about is some sort of a hot-plug scenario? Perhaps that's the problem then, in which case just work around it, it's trivial to connect before logging in.

I'm not wrong. Of course that Windows has lot of values - I know that, but Photoshop for Windows does NOT use OS scaling (like the Mac version). Instead, it has its custom scale with a setting within the app itself, and it only supports two modes 100% and 200%.

You can find people complaining about the lack of 150% option here (which is very useful and is equivalent with "more space" option under macOS)
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1686197

Also, it doesn't scale correctly between monitors (apps that use Windows scaling do, but not Photoshop). In other words, if you move parts of Photoshop (like tools or PSD document windows) on a non-hidpi monitor, they are comically large. This is not Microsoft's fault, it's up to Adobe, but that doesn't change the fact it doesn't work.

Same with Application Frame.

I'm sorry to shatter your hopes here, but Photoshop works better on a Mac.
[doublepost=1479609254][/doublepost]

It really depends on the app. Some work fine, but try changing scaling in, say, Autodesk apps, like 3dsmax. It looks messed up until you log out (text changes size but buttons remain the same, etc). Same with a lot of unoptimized apps. For example, Evernote was completely broken on hidpi until the latest version came out a few months ago.

After all this time, hidpi scaling is still a mess on Windows. You're lucky you obviously don't use any of the apps that work bad.

I'm not against Windows - but there are things that simply don't work as well compared to macOS. But it's always the same with fans of that OS, every time I say what doesn't work, I hear something "I never encountered that problem". That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, though.

So basically after making blanket wrong statements (1. Windows offers only 100 and 200% scaling, 2. Windows uses the same scaling on all monitors irrespective of dpi) now you write this blurb about Photoshop.

Sunshine, I don't use Photoshop (btw Gimp works fine though). You aren't dashing my hopes, since as I explained, it works fine for me. You're just flatly wrong.

Yes OSX has better scaling, they started earlier and since OSX is more inherently limited (fewer apps, far fewer games), it's easier to make it better. But Windows 10 has covered most of the distance.

 

[leman]

Well that's just as speculative.

True

You're basically saying Apple, AMD and Adobe couldn't get this right after 18 months of working with Metal...

My money is on Adobe, their software quality is absolutely atrocious (except possibly the Photoshop team, those guys seem to do a decent work).

 

[aevan]

So basically after making blanket wrong statements (1. Windows offers only 100 and 200% scaling, 2. Windows uses the same scaling on all monitors irrespective of dpi) now you write this blurb about Photoshop.

Sunshine, I don't use Photoshop (btw Gimp works fine though). You aren't dashing my hopes, since as I explained, it works fine for me. You're just flatly wrong.

Well, "sunshine", I said:

"Either way, I don't care much, really. In every measurable aspect for me, Photoshop works just as fast under macOS and still has some advantages over the Windows version. For example - the ability to scale the interface with OS scaling (as opposed to just two settings 100% and 200% on Windows - that, by the way, is not monitor independent so good luck if you have one hidpi and one non-hidpi screen), the ability to turn off application frame (really great for using reference images) and, of course, now the Touch Bar support which looks like a real boost to productivity"

I'm sorry you misunderstood this, but I was clearly talking about Photoshop and not Windows. I explained what lacks in the Win version of Photoshop and I said "the ability to scale the interface with OS scaling" - it is quite obvious I was aware how OS scaling works in Windows. Not my fault you didn't read carefuly.

I've been using Windows 10 from the day it came out, I am very well aware how it works. I was discussing Adobe apps and explaining why Photoshop is better on the Mac. And Photoshop works exactly as I explained - it doesn't rely on Windows scaling, probably to avoid all the hassle.

And it doesn't matter whether you use Photoshop or not, it is one of the most important apps on the PC/Mac.

And explain how is it that I'm "wrong" about this?

Yes OSX has better scaling, they started earlier and since OSX is more inherently limited (fewer apps, far fewer games), it's easier to make it better. But Windows 10 has covered most of the distance.

I don't care what the reason is, it doesn't work as well. And macOS is limited only in the mind of Windows fanboys.

 

[symphara]

And Photoshop works exactly as I explained - it doesn'trely on Windows scaling, probably to avoid all the hassle.

Hassle only in your mind. Plenty of applications work perfectly, without doing anything save for choosing the monitor scaling, which I did exactly once. If Photoshop doesn't work properly because it doesn't rely on Windows scaling, perhaps it should. In any case, one application having rather minor scaling issues which sound self-inflicted doesn't make Windows 10 all terrible.

And macOS is limited only in the mind of Windows fanboys

Yes, "Windows fanboy", that's me, you narrowed it down. An insult is clearly the way to establish your intellectual superiority.

Of course OSX has more limited software support vs Windows. Just as it is a limited server platform compared to, say, Linux. This has always been the case, since Mac is a niche market.

 

[aevan]

Hassle only in your mind. Plenty of applications work perfectly, without doing anything save for choosing the monitor scaling, which I did exactly once. If Photoshop doesn't work properly because it doesn't rely on Windows scaling, perhaps it should. In any case, one application having rather minor scaling issues which sound self-inflicted doesn't make Windows 10 all terrible.

For the last time - I wasn't talking about Windows 10. You literally crashed my conversation with SoyCapitanSoyCapitan where we were discussing Adobe apps. I was talking about Photoshop. Windows 10 - it's fine. It's a solid OS, I don't personally enjoy it, but it's solid. Photoshop works better on macOS than on Windows. All I said. What's your problem, exactly? Is the possibility of one popular app working better on the Mac so hard for you to swallow? And you say you're not a fanboy? Sheesh.

Yes, "Windows fanboy", that's me, you narrowed it down. An insult is clearly the way to establish your intellectual superiority.

No, it's a way to point out how subjective your view is. You were trying to explain a flaw on a system level (the hidpi implementation) with the number of apps. Nevermind. Twice you accuse me of saying things I didn't say, what's the point in arguing any further? I said what I had.

 

[symphara]

For the last time - I wasn't talking about Windows 10.

To my understanding that was the context. @SoyCapitanSoyCapitan said "You don't need another laptop. Just installing Boot Camp and using Premiere or After Effects there will feel like an upgrade. Windows 10 OEM can be picked up cheap, and Creative Cloud is cross platform so this is the cheapest way to boost performance for any Mac user who relies on Adobe apps."

You literally crashed my conversation with SoyCapitanSoyCapitan where we were discussing Adobe apps. I was talking about Photoshop.

Literally crashing a conversation is impossible. Since this thread was derailed anyway (I'm here for 460 benchmarks, as I have one on order), and this a public forum, I don't think you have any moral high ground to complain about crashing anything.

Windows 10 - it's fine. It's a solid OS, I don't personally enjoy it, but it's solid. Photoshop works better on macOS than on Windows. All I said. What's your problem, exactly? Is the possibility of one popular app working better on the Mac so hard for you to swallow? And you say you're not a fanboy? Sheesh.

Why the anger? Have I kicked your cat? I don't care about the OSX vs Windows debate (you clearly do, since you started it). And it's not clear at all that Photoshop, scaling issue aside, actually works better on the Mac.

I misunderstood your put-down of Windows as making general statements about the OS, instead of particularly Photoshop, and that's all. I've been very interested in hidpi scaling under Windows and I did a lot of research before getting a hidpi monitor. I've seen lots of FUD and misinformation in lots of places. Given your sanctimonious tone, I thought you're talking about the OS in general (as you seemed interested in putting it down, and promoting Mac as the better alternative, because hey Oil Paint Filter).

No, it's a way to point out how subjective your view is. You were trying to explain a flaw on a system level (the hidpi implementation) with the number of apps. Nevermind. Twice you accuse me of saying things I didn't say, what's the point in arguing any further? I said what I had.

What are you talking about? I wasn't "trying to explain a flaw on a system level". I said that it was easier for OSX to have a better support for hidpi. Having far more applications (particularly legacy ones) and far more supported hardware makes it harder for Microsoft to do it properly. Plus, OSX started first with hidpi support so I'd expect them to be in a better shape. But hidpi support is mostly a fixed issue for Windows 10 today, in my experience. Making moronic statements about "Windows fanboys" and other nonsense doesn't change that.

 

[BenRacicot]

Wow really? I was being conservative stating the 965 lol... that's going to suck for a lot of MacBook Pro owners!

Even with the new form factor and 4gbs of ram instead of 2?
So check this out... Comparison of the 460. The only thing is this rating is for the 2gb version. The new MBP 460 is the 4gb version. (trying to justify a VR capable statement)

 

[aevan]

Even with the new form factor and 4gbs of ram instead of 2?
So check this out... Comparison of the 460. The only thing is this rating is for the 2gb version. The new MBP 460 is the 4gb version. (trying to justify a VR capable statement)

That looks like the deskop version of the 460 to me, which is faster than the mobile one. New MBPs are not VR capable, sadly. But then again, they are not really gaming machines.

 

[clifgriffin]

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).

Not sure if this has been answered, but I ran Overwatch on Windows 10 this weekend on my 2.9/1TB/460 and got a consistent high 60s/70 FPS with the quality set to Ultra and resolution at native.

It beat my buddies desktop. I was very happy with the results, though I'm not a true gamer.

 

[kevin.wadiak]

Not sure if this has been answered, but I ran Overwatch on Windows 10 this weekend on my 2.9/1TB/460 and got a consistent high 60s/70 FPS with the quality set to Ultra and resolution at native.

It beat my buddies desktop. I was very happy with the results, though I'm not a true gamer.

Did you have any screen jitter? Every game i tried i would have some screen jitter on the 460 i have the 2.7.

 

[clifgriffin]

I didn't notice any. No one watching me said anything either.

 

[leman]

You're completely wrong on both accounts.

On Windows 10, if you go to Control Panel\Appearance and Personalization\Display, there's a link for scaling. You can choose a lot of values (100% - 125% - 150% etc) or type in your own, e.g. 123%.

Only it doesn't work. I set the scaling to the max and the settings panels reflect this, but the items on my desktop remain very small. And many apps have problems with correctly applying scaling.

 

[JamietheMac]

looks like gaming on this thing is a no go

 

[TechZeke]

Ok, so I'm really confused on what is considered a good GPU for a laptop these days. I thought that something that is in range of GeForce 965M is decent. I mean, for Apple, this is quite a good GPU, right? Microsoft is using the 965M in their latest Surface Book, if I'm not mistaken. And the respected XPS 15" has a 960. But these are old GPUs and if I understand it correctly - the 1060 (mobile version) is much better.

So an honest question for people who are NOT satisfied with MBPs GPU performance. What GPU would you like to see? The 1060? Is that the issue?

And I know there isn't much people can do in such short time but post Valley benchmarks and similar, but I am interested how well these GPUs work in Adobe apps, in CG apps, etc. Is it still the rule to look for the best gaming card to do your "pro" (whatever that means) stuff? I've been a PS4 gamer for a while and to be honest, I stopped looking at "how many fps does GPU X give at game X" for a while now.

So, how good are these new Nvidia GPUs for pro apps? All I can see are gaming benchmarks. In fact, when I google anything from the 10xx series, it's all about gaming performance. Even the GeForce software, it screams "15-y old gamer" to me. Of course that is less important, but I'm glad these new AMD Pros are at least not marketed with some "Xtreme Powerz Maxx" message. Still, it's performance that matters, so if anyone can clarify things a bit - I'd like to know, what passes as a good mobile GPU for graphically intensive apps these days?

In other words - what's the consensus? Are the new Polaris cards in MBPs good for work? (I know they are good for what I'll be using them, but I'd like to know anyway).

I promise not to argue with anyone I really want to know. Thanks!

EDIT: One more question - if it is true that the Radeon Pro 460 is not good enough for 4K stuff as some people are saying - and since it's close to a GeForce 965 - does that mean there were no good laptops for 4K video in existence until late 2016?

Personally, for the very low TDP constraints of the MBP, I'm impressed by the Radeon Pro 460. The GTX 1060 is a great card and engineering marvel, but lets be frank - the thing has a TDP of the old 970M. People complaining about 10 series cards are wasting their time. Think about it - 965M performance in with a power supply almost half the the size of the Dell XPS 15.

It seems to me that the nvidia free passes on this forum is real. If this would've been a GT 1030 instead everyone would be singing praise of the GPU.

 

[koyoot]

Not sure if this has been answered, but I ran Overwatch on Windows 10 this weekend on my 2.9/1TB/460 and got a consistent high 60s/70 FPS with the quality set to Ultra and resolution at native.

It beat my buddies desktop. I was very happy with the results, though I'm not a true gamer.

At Native resolution? Ultra settings?

Those scores are better than official reviews for desktop RX 460.

Look how close it would be to RX 470.

 

[jackoatmon]

The funniest thing about this whole product launch has been how it turned out all the people who were raving mad that the laptop "wasn't pro enough" turned out to just be worried about framerates in video games.

 

[reery]

looks like gaming on this thing is a no go

This video is somehow strange. It makes you think, that you pay $4300 and don't get a decent gaming machine, although most of the money went into upgrading the SSD to 2 TB. SSD storage increase comes at a premium in all Apple products since SSDs started to exist in their products.

Then he switched to 4k resolution in Mafia 3 and calls it the native resolution, laughing at <20 fps. But the native resolution on the Mac is 2880x1800. Resolution is the single most demanding option in every game, and Mafia 3 doesn't even run really well on any Windows machine at all. The difference between 1080p and 4k is almost 4 times more GPU power, which comes at a premium in a 35 watts gpu.

It's always a trade off in a mobile device, but here you'll get the most power for your watts and if this is not enough for him, he should have considered a laptop with a 1060 where the GPU uses more power than the 15" MacBook under full load (CPU+GPU). Then the fans would be louder, it would have throttling issues and would run way hotter. Don't know why you would want to put a battery in such a device. It's all a trade off and you can't blame 35 watts for not being enough for a very unoptimized and new game at 4k.

 

[koyoot]

Ok, this whole story about Radeon Pro 460 is blowing out my mind.

45 FPS in Epic Setting in 2880x1800 and 70 -80 FPS in High.

The scores are better than RX 460, which averages 45 FPS with Epic settings, but in 1080p.

 

[Clint_Barton]

Ok, this whole story about Radeon Pro 460 is blowing out my mind.

i believe that it is not actually epic, but more like high. there is something slightly wrong, but the point is, it looks very good and is running 70-80fps

 

[koyoot]

i believe that it is not actually epic, but more like high. there is something slightly wrong, but the point is, it looks very good and is running 70-80fps

Im misread what is happening. In description of the film, he states he averaged 45 FPS in Epic Settings, and 70-80 in high.

Which would also fall in line with the numbers of one forum fellow member who averaged 60-70 FPS in Ultra settings.