Sidebar Sidebar
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?

koyoot said:
Its an error. Do not get into this too much ;).

Radeon Pro will not be by any means on GTX 1070 level ;)
Click to expand...
Yep, it is just an oversight. As I said, the haven't testet the 460 yet and got their numbers probably from Reddit.
They used the graphics results (27k) instead of the overall result (17k), which is more likely the correct one.
 
ejl371 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can boot Windows from an external drive? What kind of setup (Bootcamp, extra drivers, reFIT?) did it need?

EDIT: Posted without reading the rest of the thread, saw the links you already provided, thanks a bunch.

One question though, how's the loading times for programs/startup when running Windows from your external?
 
Last edited:
leman said:
AFAIK, Windiws starting from 8 supports it natively.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know windows itself can be booted from an external drive, I meant having the Mac allow booting Windows from an external. Either way, I posted without reading the rest of the thread, he already provided links, my bad :x
 
The best part of the Radeon Pro graphics controversy is that MacBook Pro finally grown to be a pro machine ;).

For some people it has always been... :p
 
iVikD said:
You can boot Windows from an external drive? What kind of setup (Bootcamp, extra drivers, reFIT?) did it need?

EDIT: Posted without reading the rest of the thread, saw the links you already provided, thanks a bunch.

One question though, how's the loading times for programs/startup when running Windows from your external?
Click to expand...


It isn't as fast as the internal drive, but what is out there :). I've noticed no slowdowns using the external drive. The SSD is super quick. Looking at anandtech's review (back when the site was good... you know, before Anand left), http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/...w-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/7 , the drive was in the mid 200 MBs when being used hard. Even accounting for overhead, USB 3.0/3.1 Gen1 can do 400 MB, so I'm only losing the 4-500 MBs/s that the drive can hit in sequential reads. I only boot into Windows if I want to play a game or use a program like publisher.


I haven't had a chance to do tons of testing, and I'm going to install the latest bootcamp drivers on it today. I'll let you know if I find any issues.
 
ejl371 said:
It isn't as fast as the internal drive, but what is out there :). I've noticed no slowdowns using the external drive. The SSD is super quick. Looking at anandtech's review (back when the site was good... you know, before Anand left), http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/...w-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/7 , the drive was in the mid 200 MBs when being used hard. Even accounting for overhead, USB 3.0/3.1 Gen1 can do 400 MB, so I'm only losing the 4-500 MBs/s that the drive can hit in sequential reads. I only boot into Windows if I want to play a game or use a program like publisher.


I haven't had a chance to do tons of testing, and I'm going to install the latest bootcamp drivers on it today. I'll let you know if I find any issues.
Click to expand...

Sweet, I wanted to know because I also only go on Windows mostly for games. I don't need super specific stats, just a comparison with, say, a normal Sata3 internal SSD, mostly to know what load times are like.
 
iVikD said:
Sweet, I wanted to know because I also only go on Windows mostly for games. I don't need super specific stats, just a comparison with, say, a normal Sata3 internal SSD, mostly to know what load times are like.
Click to expand...


Ran some more benchmarks today after installing the 11/21 Boot Camp drivers... (EDIT, updated Passmark scores after swapping the SSD into USB 3.1 Gen 2 enclosure)


Passmark - with baselines from their site
CPU
2012 MBP - i7-3820QM -- 8904
2015 iMac 27 i7-6700K -- 10491
2015 MBP - i7-4870HQ --9905
2013 MacPro - Xeon E5-2697v2 -- 16322
2016 MBP i7-6820HQ -- 9229

3D
2012 MBP - GT 650M -- 427
2015 iMac - M395X -- 5786
2015 MBP - M370X -- 1898
2013 MacPro - HD7970/ 280X -- 4148
2016 MBP - Radeon Pro 460 -- 3557

Memory
2012 MBP - 2446
2015 iMac 27 - 2633
2015 MBP - 2358
2013 MacPro - 2184
2016 MBP - 2568

Hard Drive
2012 MBP - 3712
2015 iMac 27 - 14622
2015 MBP - 15335
2013 MacPro - 7945
2016 MBP - 2188 (840 EVO in a USB 3.1 Gen 1 enclosure, didn't run any tests on the new drive)
3613 in a USB 3.1 Gen 2 enclosure

Geekbench
CPU - Single Core 4201 -- MultiCore 13407
OpenCL - 52520

Unigine
Heaven - Extreme settings
Score - 653
FPS - 25.9
Min - 14.9
Max - 55.9

Valley - Extreme HD
Score - 770
FPS - 18.4
Min - 10.6
Max - 34.4

Futuremark - All at default settings, using OpenCL
Home - 3602

Creative - 4632

Office (Sorry, don't have Adobe)- 2978

Work - 4404

Time Spy
Score - 1388
Test 1 - 9.46 FPS
Test 2 - 7.67 FPS
CPU - 3677 - 12.36 FPS

Skydiver
Score 14798
Test 1 - 71.22 FPS
Test 2 - 64.29 FPS
Physics Score - 8929
8 Thread - 182.74 FPS
24 Thread - 103.55 FPS
48 Thread - 55.70 FPS
96 Thread - 30.01 FPS
Combined Score - 16062 - 66.10 FPS

Firestrike
Score - 4607
Test 1- 22.2 FPS
Test 2 - 18.25 FPS
Physics Score - 9855 - 31.29 FPS
Combined Score - 1541 - 7.17 FPS

Firestrike Ultra
Graphics Score - 1017
Test 1 - 5.02 FPS
Test 2 - 3.96 FPS
Physics Score - 9507 - 30.18 FPS
Combined Score - 468 - 2.18 FPS



No graphics issues, no issues with the external drive, quick load times. Hope that gives some more insight into the 460 for comparison.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WRONG
Dukat said:
If someone has the 455 or 460 GPU model and owns Civilization 6, how does the game run? Smooth?
Would a 460 be noticeably better for a game like that? Good graphics, nice 3d models but fairly static. Trying to decide if the 460 is worth the price and 5 week wait vs. in-store pick-up which may be soon. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I have both the 455 and 460. The Mac version of Civilization VI runs very smoothly on both. What I found interesting was that the in-game benchmark returned similar frame rates for both cards with identical settings...a complete wash between the two. Not sure how it'd perform with the Windows version & BootCamp, but for the purposes of Civ VI on Mac, the two cards are identical. Debating returning the 460 at this point because the 455 gets the job done without any issues.

EDIT: This was on the built-in display at the default resolution...could be more of a difference driving external displays.
 
VFR801 said:
I have both the 455 and 460. The Mac version of Civilization VI runs very smoothly on both. What I found interesting was that the in-game benchmark returned similar frame rates for both cards with identical settings...a complete wash between the two. Not sure how it'd perform with the Windows version & BootCamp, but for the purposes of Civ VI on Mac, the two cards are identical. Debating returning the 460 at this point because the 455 gets the job done without any issues.

EDIT: This was on the built-in display at the default resolution...could be more of a difference driving external displays.
Click to expand...
Does the 460 run hotter or louder than the 455?
 
Would someone please post world of Warcraft benchmarks on the 460 model? i guess its still way better to play in Windows than macos?
Im impressed by the overwatch benchmarks so i have some hopes for wow performance now.
 
iVikD said:
Sweet, I wanted to know because I also only go on Windows mostly for games. I don't need super specific stats, just a comparison with, say, a normal Sata3 internal SSD, mostly to know what load times are like.
Click to expand...

FYI, I swapped the drive into a Akitio enclosure today that was USB 3.1 Gen 2. The passmark scores skyrocketed
Disk Mark - 2188 ---> 3424
Seq. Read - 222 ---> 367
Seq. Write - 206 ---> 386
Rand R/W - 176 ---> 192

I bet that T3 drive you were looking at would do even better.


malikkamran said:
Do pc mark battery test please sorry got mixed up
Click to expand...

Which battery test? Office? Web Browsing? Creative? Etc. Sorry, I'm only going to do it once when I have time :)
 
ejl371 said:
FYI, I swapped the drive into a Akitio enclosure today that was USB 3.1 Gen 2. The passmark scores skyrocketed
Disk Mark - 2188 ---> 3424
Seq. Read - 222 ---> 367
Seq. Write - 206 ---> 386
Rand R/W - 176 ---> 192

I bet that T3 drive you were looking at would do even better.




Which battery test? Office? Web Browsing? Creative? Etc. Sorry, I'm only going to do it once when I have time :)
Click to expand...
Web browser thanks you are good
 
Runqen said:
Would someone please post world of Warcraft benchmarks on the 460 model? i guess its still way better to play in Windows than macos?
Im impressed by the overwatch benchmarks so i have some hopes for wow performance now.
Click to expand...

Since WoW switched to metal it's been pretty much a wash between windows and macOS on AMD cards.

Head over to the official mac technical support forums. There are some there. Seems to be running very nicely.
 
dovvee said:
Hey, yeah, a new one here:


Games in that video:
GTA
Witcher 3
BF 1
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Click to expand...

Now that's a more fair review. Greetings to him!
I'm also still impressed by the Radeon 460. Really good job there.
It's funny how people on Youtube claiming about "but but Apple could have used a NVIDIA 1070" have no idea what they're talking about.
Or others comparing monsters heavy "gaming" laptop.
o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: vbedia, jeh72 and Yaemon
dovvee said:
Hey, yeah, a new one here:


Games in that video:
GTA
Witcher 3
BF 1
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Click to expand...

lol I stopped watching after he said he was testing the wrong games :p

of course if you test the right games.....any machine made can be a very good gaming machine.

the 2016 machine is just like any topped MacBook Pro made before it, it can game.....and saying it should for 4K....well drop the 2TB ssd....thats the bulk of the 4K price, not the £90 GPU upgrade...
[doublepost=1480401760][/doublepost]
WRONG said:
Now that's a more fair review. Greetings to him!
I'm also still impressed by the Radeon 460. Really good job there.
It's funny how people on Youtube claiming about "but but Apple could have used a NVIDIA 1070" have no idea what they're talking about.
Or others comparing monsters heavy "gaming" laptop.
o_O
Click to expand...

Given the big compromise Made with the battery, apple had little choice. The 460 is inline with previous GPUs offered with MacBook pros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back