Are they any Radeon Pro 460 benchmarks out yet?

[koyoot]

Probably more like 40-50W. The 965M already has the TDP of 60-70W, there is no chance that Pascal is warmer than that. But all in all, I don't think that the mobile 1050 will be substantially faster than the Pro 460. Maybe few percent here and there, at best. And one also shouldn't forget that AMD cards perform really well with next-gen APIs such as DX12, Vulkan (and most likely Metal), so the AMD choice might have been indeed the best one.

GTX 1050 Ti for mobile has higher core clocks than desktop part. MUCH higher. Boost clock for desktop is 1392 MHz, and power consumption for that GPU peaks at 75W with average 67W of power. Mobile version has base clock of 1.5 GHz, and boost clock of 1.62 GHz.

How will it affect power consumption do you think?

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Under load in a quick benchmark anything can look impressive. Under load with sustained work...all laptop GPUs throttle. That's the sad reality. We can harp on about scores all day but serious work should be done with a desktop machine or a thicker laptop. At least until the far future.

 

[monkeydax]

Sure they could - if they only weren't so obsessed with thinness!

Examples...

https://liliputing.com/2016/08/giga...-gaming-laptops-nvidia-gtx-1060-graphics.html

Every shortcoming and criticism of the new MBP can be easily overcome if it weren't for the utter obsession with thin and light. 1 more lb of weight and a bit more thickness would have made it into the MacBook PRO, not MacBook ProLight that it is now. Oh and hey - 32GB? No problem for others.

Well, gotta understand the the MacBook Pro wasn't designed to compete with those kinds of laptops. The MBP appeals to a ton of users who will never even consider that gaming laptop you quoted up there. So. Bummer for some, but too bad.

I love the design of the MacBook Pro, sure for that money we want it to be the best laptop in the world to everyone, unfortunately, even the iPhone can't be the best iPhone in the world to everyone. It sure is a powerful computer, that would easily serve the needs for many people. But for anything else, there are desktops that do great video editing, there are powerful gaming laptops, there are powerful gaming desktops, there's the Mac Pro. Spoilt for choice aren't we

 

[leman]

GTX 1050 Ti for mobile has higher core clocks than desktop part. MUCH higher. Boost clock for desktop is 1392 MHz, and power consumption for that GPU peaks at 75W with average 67W of power. Mobile version has base clock of 1.5 GHz, and boost clock of 1.62 GHz.

I was thinking about the non-Ti version.

 

[Clint_Barton]

Probably more like 40-50W. The 965M already has the TDP of 60-70W, there is no chance that Pascal is warmer than that. But all in all, I don't think that the mobile 1050 will be substantially faster than the Pro 460. Maybe few percent here and there, at best. And one also shouldn't forget that AMD cards perform really well with next-gen APIs such as DX12, Vulkan (and most likely Metal), so the AMD choice might have been indeed the best one.

If you take a look at this: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-RX-460-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1050/3641vs3650
it shows that the 1050 is 9% faster than the RX 460, and the desktop RX 460 is around 5% faster than the Pro 460, so the 1050 is only around 14% faster than the Pro 460

 

[neteng101]

there's the Mac Pro. Spoilt for choice aren't we

The forgotten outdated Mac Pro. There should be lightweight Macs (the MacBook) and proper PRO grade MacBook Pros... unfortunately the MBP line is now a prosumer product instead of a professional product. Its just a tarted up MacBook that sells at a higher price instead of being a serious pro focused product though it can still handle quite a few professional tasks, but compromises have been made.

Why? Cause you have product people building for form over function. For similar reasons, the iPad Pro really falls far short of being a true Pro grade product, though its mostly crippled by iOS.

 

[leman]

Well, gotta understand the the MacBook Pro wasn't designed to compete with those kinds of laptops. The MBP appeals to a ton of users who will never even consider that gaming laptop you quoted up there. So. Bummer for some, but too bad.

That said, it will comfortanly run any game out there at 1680x1050/high settings or better, so its absolutely fine for the little casual gaming that I do

 

[fokmik]

Sure they could - if they only weren't so obsessed with thinness!

Examples...

https://liliputing.com/2016/08/giga...-gaming-laptops-nvidia-gtx-1060-graphics.html

Every shortcoming and criticism of the new MBP can be easily overcome if it weren't for the utter obsession with thin and light. 1 more lb of weight and a bit more thickness would have made it into the MacBook PRO, not MacBook ProLight that it is now. Oh and hey - 32GB? No problem for others.

my GOD, those are more desktop than portable devices...they are thicker and heavier even than clasic MBP

 

[koyoot]

For those who praise Nvidia hardware, I suggest getting ackowledged with how it behaves in thermally constrained situation, and how performance tanks in this scenario under load.

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-10...1060-test/3/#abschnitt_battlefield1benchmarks

Here is one of examples. Blue line in the benchmark is the Zotac Zbox with quad core i5, and GTX 1060. GTX 1060 in a tiny Zbox Zotac desktop PC, throttled to Radeon R9 380 levels, and 13% faster than desktop GTX 960. Why do you believe that the GPUs in even worse thermal conditions would behave better?

And Radeon RX 460 is only 4% slower than GTX 960 in its current form. And benchmarks say that Radeon Pro 460 is 5% slower than RX 460. It appears that Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti, despite the praise on forums would not be faster in 35W thermal envelope from Radeon Pro 460.

 

[neteng101]

my GOD, those are more desktop than portable devices...they are thicker and heavier even than clasic MBP

4 lbs is heavy? You need to eat more and work out.

The old 17" MBP was 6.6 lbs and there are still some out there that miss it and wish for the return of a 17" option even. And 15" cMBPs are like 5.6 lbs.

 

[jjjoseph]

For those who praise Nvidia hardware, I suggest getting ackowledged with how it behaves in thermally constrained situation, and how performance tanks in this scenario under load.

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-10...1060-test/3/#abschnitt_battlefield1benchmarks

Here is one of examples. Blue line in the benchmark is the Zotac Zbox with quad core i5, and GTX 1060. GTX 1060 in a tiny Zbox Zotac desktop PC, throttled to Radeon R9 380 levels, and 13% faster than desktop GTX 960. Why do you believe that the GPUs in even worse thermal conditions would behave better?

And Radeon RX 460 is only 4% slower than GTX 960 in its current form. And benchmarks say that Radeon Pro 460 is 5% slower than RX 460. It appears that Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti, despite the praise on forums would not be faster in 35W thermal envelope from Radeon Pro 460.

Wouldn't this argument mean to exclude a GPU all together and just use the IRIS Pro graphics built into the CPU?

 

[leman]

If you take a look at this: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-RX-460-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1050/3641vs3650
it shows that the 1050 is 9% faster than the RX 460, and the desktop RX 460 is around 5% faster than the Pro 460, so the 1050 is only around 14% faster than the Pro 460

The desktop version, yes. But the mobile 1050 will be slower than the desktop version. Besides, when you look at the DX12 and Vulkan benchmarks, the Polaris gains a very healthy performance boost.

Disclaimer: we still don't know how 460 Pro performs, except in very few not properly controlled tests. It could be anywhere from being 15% slower than the 460RX to actually being 15% faster.

 

[koyoot]

Wouldn't this argument mean to exclude a GPU all together and just use the IRIS Pro graphics?

Not really. For example 75W desktop GPU - GTX 1050 Ti averages under 60 degree C(57-59 C, depending on the reviewer) temperatures. Desktop GTX 1050 averages between 55 and 57 degrees under load. THAT is Ok. I am very up for this level thermal performance. Not when your GPUs overheat because of excessive thermal output that cannot be handled by the cooling system. Which is the case of 115W GTX 1060 GPU from the Zotac computer.

 

[jjjoseph]

Not really. For example 75W desktop GPU - GTX 1050 Ti averages under 60 degree C(57-59 C, depending on the reviewer) temperatures. Desktop GTX 1050 averages between 55 and 57 degrees under load. THAT is Ok. I am very up for this level thermal performance. Not when your GPUs overheat because of excessive thermal output that cannot be handled by the cooling system. Which is the case of 115W GTX 1060 GPU from the Zotac computer.

I love the ability to explain Watt per Performance, but if I need to do real work on the field with my laptop, this argument doesn't help me get work done, only to try and convince my clients why I'm still working and everyone else is packing up and moving onto a different location.

 

[leman]

Wouldn't this argument mean to exclude a GPU all together and just use the IRIS Pro graphics built into the CPU?

Iris Pro throttles just as well, or even worse (its on the same package with the CPU after all). I think the point is that design of the cooling system needs to go with the hardware specs. Putting a 100+W GPU into a tiny laptop chassis is simply a marketing gag unless you make sure that it can also run properly. Look at all those "thin" laptops with fast GPUs — not only they dramatically reduce the battery to cram some more cooling into the limited space, but they are also usually have 'open' bottom via huge ventilation holes and grills. Imagine what happens with all the dust. Apple's move might be not as flashy, but they decided to use a low-powered card that has amazing performance given its TDP and I wouldn't be surprised if they also have a cooling system that can deliver that performance in a more or less stable fashion.

 

[koyoot]

I love the ability to explain Watt per Performance, but if I need to do real work on the field with my laptop, this argument doesn't help me get work done, only to try and convince my clients why I'm still working and everyone else is packing up and moving onto a different location.

Do you have to work because your machine is too slow, or you are too slow?

Iris Pro throttles just as well, or even worse (its on the same package with the CPU after all). I think the point is that design of the cooling system needs to go with the hardware specs. Putting a 100+W GPU into a tiny laptop chassis is simply a marketing gag unless you make sure that it can also run properly. Look at all those "thin" laptops with fast GPUs — not only they dramatically reduce the battery to cram some more cooling into the limited space, but they are also usually have 'open' bottom via huge ventilation holes and grills. Imagine what happens with all the dust. Apple's move might be not as flashy, but they decided to use a low-powered card that has amazing performance given its TDP and I wouldn't be surprised if they also have a cooling system that can deliver that performance in a more or less stable fashion.

Precisely.

 

[BenTrovato]

4 lbs is heavy? You need to eat more and work out.

The old 17" MBP was 6.6 lbs and there are still some out there that miss it and wish for the return of a 17" option even. And 15" cMBPs are like 5.6 lbs.

Ya but with the weight of the dongles and other accessories, 4lbs quickly turns into 10!

 

[jjjoseph]

Do you have to work because your machine is too slow, or you are too slow?
Precisely.

Yawn.. great well thought out response, great to know the level of people here.

 

[fokmik]

4 lbs is heavy? You need to eat more and work out.

The old 17" MBP was 6.6 lbs and there are still some out there that miss it and wish for the return of a 17" option even. And 15" cMBPs are like 5.6 lbs.

i was talking about those from the link not the MBP, so i expect you cant leave with them since the battery last for 2 hours with those keyboard that wobbles when you press them a little bit harder. Common lets get real

 

[koyoot]

Yawn.. great well thought out response, great to know the level of people here.

That was serious question.

 

[jjjoseph]

That was serious question.

Your a troll. Its called trolling, doesn't deserve a response.

 

[koyoot]

Your a troll.

If you say so... <helpless>

 

[jjjoseph]

If you say so... <helpless>

Trolls will be trolling... <pointless>

 

[ah-]

According to this guy on reddit the 460 is 40-50% faster than the 455 in gfxbench: https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comm...th_a_2016_15_i7_29_460_4gb_512gb_mbp/da1phuz/

And here are scores from both a 450 and a 460: https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?be...ame1=AMD+Radeon+Pro+460&D2=AMD+Radeon+Pro+450

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Ya but with the weight of the dongles and other accessories, 4lbs quickly turns into 10!

lol those are some heavy dongles