Are they any Radeon Pro 460 benchmarks out yet?

[koyoot]

Any comprehensive Reviews of 1080p gaming with the 460 vs. some other cards such as the nVidia 965m?

Will I be able to play Battlefield 1 with high settings at 1080p?
Would be amazing if someone could do some BF1 Benchmarks!

More than likely. RX 460 averages in DX12 mode 48 FPS in this game. Substract 10-15% from the score and you will have averages for Radeon Pro 460.

P.S. RX 460 is faster in this game than GTX 960 desktop. And 965M is based on the same chip, but with lower core clocks.

 

[Nik]

Thanks!

 

[Scott G.]

So i have a small problem, I want to get the Pro 460 graphics, but to build that machine it is going to take till around jan 3rd to deliver, so that is a long time. but i could pick up a computer with the pro 455 like tomorrow. how much of a performance difference will there be? I will pretty much be playing only overwatch, along with final cut pro and other rendering software. The hesitation that i have with the pro 460 is there seems to be a large number of devices with the 460 that are having glitches. so any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I'm in the same boat. =/

I ordered the 2.7/460/512gb on the 15th. It shows a delivery date of between Dec. 22-28. The Apple store has stock of the 2.7/455/512gb. Really not sure what to do. It's all specifically about the wait, the money isn't the issue. I just don't know if it's worth it the wait for the 460. I'm sure it'd be nice to have the extra 2gb of vram and the 1024 stream processors in the future, but I still can't make a decision lol. I haven't read anything about failing 460s. Maybe I'll take a look.

 

[StayPuft]

I'm in the same boat. =/

I ordered the 2.7/460/512gb on the 15th. It shows a delivery date of between Dec. 22-28. The Apple store has stock of the 2.7/455/512gb. Really not sure what to do. It's all specifically about the wait, the money isn't the issue. I just don't know if it's worth it the wait for the 460. I'm sure it'd be nice to have the extra 2gb of vram and the 1024 stream processors in the future, but I still can't make a decision lol. I haven't read anything about failing 460s. Maybe I'll take a look.

I'd wait. It would be silly to spend that much and not have the 460.

 

[ah-]

Any comprehensive Reviews of 1080p gaming with the 460 vs. some other cards such as the nVidia 965m?

Will I be able to play Battlefield 1 with high settings at 1080p?
Would be amazing if someone could do some BF1 Benchmarks!

Not a comprehensive review or scientific numbers, but it runs pretty well on mine. Full resolution, 50% render scale, medium/high and 50-60fps.

And it runs way cooler than the 750M used to.

 

[Scott G.]

I'd wait. It would be silly to spend that much and not have the 460.

Yea, that's what I'm thinking. I just read the "glitches" thread though. I'm scared lol.

 

[StayPuft]

Yea, that's what I'm thinking. I just read the "glitches" thread though. I'm scared lol.

If you do have glitches, you're covered under warranty at least. But even if that does happen, it's still better to wait and receive the better GPU. The other GPU options are paltry in comparison.

 

[LoopsOfFury]

Battlefield 1 at native resolution (2880x1800) with 50% render scale (so essentially 1440x900) and auto quality (essentially medium) in the Arditi section of the campaign gets 60-70+ fps.

Eve Online at 1680x1050 with max settings for everything except anti-aliasing (disabled) while orbiting the Perimeter gate in Jita ranges from 80-120 fps. Zoomed in at the Jita 4-4 undock point is around 35 fps.

Edit: both games are with boot camp.

 

[koyoot]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-Pro-460.181783.0.html

First benchmarks for Radeon Pro 460. 9% slower than GTX 965M.

Also, there are scores for Radeon Pro 450, which is right in between GTX 950M and GTX 960M.

 

[iKrivetko]

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.

It's actually very impressive for a 35w chip.

 

[koyoot]

It's actually very impressive for a 35w chip.

I corrected it later. It is 70-80 FPS on high in 2880x1800 resolution .

 

[iKrivetko]

I corrected it later. It is 70-80 FPS on high in 2880x1800 resolution .

I know, that's what I am referring to.

 

[ejl371]

I just benchmarked my system in Windows 10 using Passmark version 9. (EDIT - Redid the benchmarks after putting the SSD in a USB 3.1 Gen 2 enclosure and updating the drivers)

i7 6820HQ (the 2.7 GHZ processor)
Radeon Pro 460
16 GB of Ram (obviously)
1 TB Samsung 840 EVO connected by USB 3.1 Gen 1 was my boot drive

CPU Mark -- 9116 (11/25/16 -9229)
2D Graphics -- 684 (11/25/16 -712)
3D Graphics -- 3534 (11/25/16 -3557)
Memory Mark -- 2595 (11/25/16 -2568)
Disk Mark -- 1643 (External Drive in USB 3.1 Gen 1 enclosure), (11/25/16 in a gen 2 enclosure 3424)
Computer Mark -- 3490 (Again, keep in mind, I booted on an external drive) (11/25/16 -4089)

If anyone needs anymore info for individual test scores, let me know and I'll post them.

 

[WRONG]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-Pro-460.181783.0.html

First benchmarks for Radeon Pro 460. 9% slower than GTX 965M.

Also, there are scores for Radeon Pro 450, which is right in between GTX 950M and GTX 960M.

Impressive, really impressive.
For once, we could be really satisfied with Apple GPU.
I can't believe it.
Good job, Apple!
Totally worth the wait!
/
Someone with more knowledge than me could please explain this?!
How is the Radeon Pro just 9% slower than the desktop GTX 1070?!

 

[malikkamran]

I just benchmarked my system in Windows 10 using Passmark version 9.

i7 6820HQ (the 2.7 GHZ processor)
Radeon Pro 460
16 GB of Ram (obviously)
1 TB Samsung 840 EVO connected by USB 3.1 Gen 1 was my boot drive

CPU Mark -- 9116
2D Graphics -- 684
3D Graphics -- 3534
Memory Mark -- 2595
Disk Mark -- 1643 (External Drive)
Computer Mark -- 3490 (Again, keep in mind, I booted on an external drive)

If anyone needs anymore info for individual test scores, let me know and I'll post them.

3D mark battery test

 

[Clint_Barton]

Impressive, really impressive.
For once, we could be really satisfied with Apple GPU.
I can't believe it.
Good job, Apple!
Totally worth the wait!
/
Someone with more knowledge than me could please explain this?!
How is the Radeon Pro just 9% slower than the desktop GTX 1070?!
View attachment 674585

That is interesting. I am not sure I understand it. But I think it's a good thing.

 

[fs454]

I'm having a great time so far with the Pro 460 and gaming. I'm away from my main hackintosh/W10 setup so I'm doing my occasional BF1 and Overwatch matches on the MBP.

Battlefield 1 (mixed DX11, medium settings high textures and AA) and Overwatch (High) both run great at 2880x1800 with about 65% resolution scale with a rock solid 60fps. It's effectively rendering lower res and upscaling, but with some AA and some fine tuning of the settings I have something that looks pretty great - and I'm used to gaming maxed out on a high-dpi 4K display with my 980Ti. This kind of stuff was laughable on the 750M.
[doublepost=1480043556][/doublepost]

How is the Radeon Pro just 9% slower than the desktop GTX 1070?!

If I had to guess, a lot of GPUs are really great at sub-1080p rendering. That benchmark at 720p seems to run great on everything, whereas as soon as you crank to 1080p, 1440p and 4k you're exponentially increasing the load. I'm impressed with my 460 but in no way is it close to a 1070 in real-world use.

 

[Scott G.]

I just benchmarked my system in Windows 10 using Passmark version 9.

i7 6820HQ (the 2.7 GHZ processor)
Radeon Pro 460
16 GB of Ram (obviously)
1 TB Samsung 840 EVO connected by USB 3.1 Gen 1 was my boot drive

CPU Mark -- 9116
2D Graphics -- 684
3D Graphics -- 3534
Memory Mark -- 2595
Disk Mark -- 1643 (External Drive)
Computer Mark -- 3490 (Again, keep in mind, I booted on an external drive)

If anyone needs anymore info for individual test scores, let me know and I'll post them.

What did you use to connect the ssd? Would an external Samsung T3 be able to used as a Windows boot drive through boot camp?

 

[ejl371]

3D mark battery test

I'll try to do that tomorrow for you.

What did you use to connect the ssd? Would an external Samsung T3 be able to used as a Windows boot drive through boot camp?

I used this enclosure -- https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B019HXSQ6K/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I used this thread to find the bootcamp drivers -- https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macbook-pro-late-2016-bootcamp-drivers.2014884/

One of the answers in this thread gives the steps to create a bootable external USB drive if you do not know how --https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5431182?start=15&tstart=0


Hope that helps.

 

[reery]

Someone with more knowledge than me could please explain this?!
How is the Radeon Pro just 9% slower than the desktop GTX 1070?!
View attachment 674585

That's probably from Notebookcheck. They haven't tested the 460 Pro yet. Must be an error as their 460 Pro summary page confuses it with a Radeon desktop GPU. Only the 450 has been officially revied by them, which is right inbetween the 950M and 960M. 460 Pro is inbetween 960M and 965M. Quite impressive.

Just for comparison, the XPS 15" with a 960M is 20 degrees C hotter on the case (43 vs 62) and uses 114 watts under full load vs. 75-80 watts. And that's while being on par or slower than the MacBook in GPU performance. You can guess which one is the noisier one.
Also the XPS battery lasts 2 whole hours less despite having the significantly bigger battery.
That's what I mean by impressive.

 

[leman]

That's probably from Notebookcheck. They haven't tested the 460 Pro yet. Must be an error as their 460 Pro summary page confuses it with a Radeon desktop GPU. Only the 450 has been officially revied by them, whitch is right inbetween the 950M and 960M. 460 Pro is inbetween 960M and 965M. Quite impressive.

It doesn't seem to be an error. But Cloud Gate is a fairly simple benchmark, which also heavily takes CPU results into account. Above a certain performance level, different systems have very similar results. One would need to look at the graphics score to see the GPU difference.[/QUOTE]

 

[koyoot]

Its an error. Do not get into this too much .

Radeon Pro will not be by any means on GTX 1070 level

 

[dk808]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-Pro-460.181783.0.html

First benchmarks for Radeon Pro 460. 9% slower than GTX 965M.

Also, there are scores for Radeon Pro 450, which is right in between GTX 950M and GTX 960M.

Wow thats pretty surprising about the 450. I thought the 450 would be around the same performance or worse than the m370x because of that tflops rating thing that amd showed. If i had known the 450 was going to be better than a 950m i would've just gone with the 450 because it probably consumes less power than the 460

 

[WRONG]

Its an error. Do not get into this too much .

Radeon Pro will not be by any means on GTX 1070 level

Of course not.
I was just curious about what could be that make the Radeon looks like this in that specific test.
And probably this is the solution

That benchmark at 720p seems to run great on everything, whereas as soon as you crank to 1080p, 1440p and 4k you're exponentially increasing the load.

 

[koyoot]

Of course not.
I was just curious about what could be that make the Radeon looks like this in that specific test.
And probably this is the solution

In lower resolutions you are CPU bounded. GPUs performance starts to gap with increased resolutions.