Could someone explain what Vega 20 does better than 560X for avg consumers?

[vmflapem]

I am notorious for over-specing my laptop build. I always feel guilty but I'm okay as long as I am satisfied. I am a student and use my laptop for very average stuff - netflix, youtube, facebook, onenote, gaming (overwatch, LoL). I don't do any video or photo editing.

I am currently using a 13" MBP non-touch bar but I really can't get used to the 13" screen so I am going to upgrade to a 15" MBP. I don't mind paying extra $ for the best experience (I can always sell it later too). I'm just wondering, though, would getting Vega 20 over 560X benefit me in any way? I am occasionally having issues syncing OneNote on my 13" MBP (it freezes and crashes) so maybe I'm thinking I can benefit from having a high-end graphic card?

 

[Ploki]

no. frankly, mb 12” is enough for everything except overwatch.
for your use, vega20 will benefit for overwatch.
freezing and crashing of one note will likely remain

 

[Pangalactic]

would getting Vega 20 over 560X benefit me in any way?

Regular use: no
Video editing: no (talking about average consumer, not a pro editor who does it for a living)
Netflix/Youtube/Etc: no
Gaming: just a little bit (around 10% more FPS and less lag)

Plus thermal throttling issues and fan noise is VERY REAL with the i9/Vega 20 (not sure about the i7, might be better)
Overall - not worth it for your use case.

 

[Evervescant]

Regular use: no
Video editing: no (talking about average consumer, not a pro editor who does it for a living)
Netflix/Youtube/Etc: no
Gaming: just a little bit (around 10% more FPS and less lag)

Plus thermal throttling issues and fan noise is VERY REAL with the i9/Vega 20 (not sure about the i7, might be better)
Overall - not worth it for your use case.

As someone who's owned both the 560x model and the Vega 20, I can tell you that the Vega 20 model is definitely more than 10% faster in games. More like 30% or 40%. It's very significant.

 

[Pangalactic]

As someone who's owned both the 560x model and the Vega 20, I can tell you that the Vega 20 model is definitely more than 10% faster in games. More like 30% or 40%. It's very significant.

From Dave 2D. Might actually be a bigger difference on Windows - or with games that like Vega more than Nvidia (like Doom).

 

[Ploki]

From Dave 2D. Might actually be a bigger difference on Windows - or with games that like Vega more than Nvidia (like Doom).

uff. thought it would be more.

 

[kingtj]

That would align with the benchmarks BareFeats showed for the Vega 20 vs. the 560X.

Honestly though? Unless you're dual booting into Windows and OS X on the notebook and playing a lot of Windows game titles -- the Mac-compatible video game options are too limited to justify the extra expense of the Vega.

Fortnite may be about the best recent example you could give, where the faster video would be a plus. But a game like Starcraft 2 has run well enough on older hardware for a while now. It doesn't need the extra frames the Vega would give it. Heroes of the Storm isn't exactly "graphics intensive" either, and I would think, again, would run well enough without the graphics speed boost of the Vega.

It'd be nice if these new graphics options help drive some future OS X native video game releases. But I won't hold my breath at this point. It's too little, too late -- and still only included with the top-end Macs that most users don't own.

From Dave 2D. Might actually be a bigger difference on Windows - or with games that like Vega more than Nvidia (like Doom).

 

[pendragon1984]

 

[Pangalactic]

be nice if these new graphics options help drive some future OS X native video game releases

I don't think it's likely. Apple's market share in laptops is around 10%. Of that segment, we need all Apple users who have Vega laptops. I don't know, let's say 5%? So that's 0.5% of the total market. Now even considering that half of them would be into gaming, that makes a 0.25% of the total laptop market. Granted, not all windows laptops are for gaming, but overall I think it's still too small a market for game developers to actually care that much.

 

[Ploki]

Oopsi

 

[Queen6]

I don't think it's likely. Apple's market share in laptops is around 10%. Of that segment, we need all Apple users who have Vega laptops. I don't know, let's say 5%? So that's 0.5% of the total market. Now even considering that half of them would be into gaming, that makes a 0.25% of the total laptop market. Granted, not all windows laptops are for gaming, but overall I think it's still too small a market for game developers to actually care that much.

Gaming on a Mac, your just punishing yourself as it's entirely the wrong platform. Dev's don't invest as Apple doesn't simple as that...

Vega is there to boost productivity, equally for the price point of the MBP Vega should be the default dGPU not an additional cost, then again this is Apple under Tim Cook master of nickel & diming the customer...

Q-6

 

[2027376]

does anyone know if the vega 20 would benefit someone running multiple external 4k monitors? I noticed with my 2014 MBP with integrated graphics that playing youtube videos, running VMs (idle), etc. on the external 4k monitor caused the fans to spin like crazy - not so with just the internal monitor.

 

[fate0311]

Regular use: no
Video editing: no (talking about average consumer, not a pro editor who does it for a living)
Netflix/Youtube/Etc: no
Gaming: just a little bit (around 10% more FPS and less lag)

Plus thermal throttling issues and fan noise is VERY REAL with the i9/Vega 20 (not sure about the i7, might be better)
Overall - not worth it for your use case.

you have no idea what you are talking about.

thermals are down with the Vega..and also allows the CPU to benchmark higher (more headroom before actually throttling).

your credibility for anything on these forums is now zero in my book.

 

[Ploki]

you have no idea what you are talking about.

thermals are down with the Vega..and also allows the CPU to benchmark higher (more headroom before actually throttling).

I’ve seen no proof that support that claim. (And i really wanted to justify ordering a Vega.)

 

[fate0311]

I’ve seen no proof that support that claim. (And i really wanted to justify ordering a Vega.)

yes there is support...try searching around the net.

im so sick of people coming on here and regurgitating a video they watched in their own words in an attempt to look as if they know what their talking about.

 

[Pangalactic]

your credibility for anything on these forums is now zero in my book.

I'm so sorry to hear about my exclusion from the famous book of credibility, really hurts.

yes there is support...try searching around the net.

im so sick of people coming on here and regurgitating a video they watched in their own words in an attempt to look as if they know what their talking about.

And what have you got? Maybe your own YouTube channel? Or a blog? Some Mac research source to support what you are saying? Or just waiving hands and claiming all ridiculous things that come into your mind without any support? You should probably join the flat earth society then - all the qualities for a perfect candidate are there.

 

[Ploki]

yes there is support...try searching around the net.

im so sick of people coming on here and regurgitating a video they watched in their own words in an attempt to look as if they know what their talking about.

2nd highest geekbench benchmark is from october - pre vega...

And none of the more knowledgable forumers supported claims that vega is somehow better. It has different heatsink to accomodate the memory but nothing suggest that thermals are different...

Do you know how that looks for apple? “Buy a 350$ GPU to get decent performance from our top of the line i9 CPU”

Dont think so.

 

[leman]

I’ve seen no proof that support that claim. (And i really wanted to justify ordering a Vega.)

Regular use: no
Plus thermal throttling issues and fan noise is VERY REAL with the i9/Vega 20 (not sure about the i7, might be better)

I've used both the 560X and Vega Pro 20 models (both with i9) and I can most decidedly state that there is no noticeable difference in thermals. Neither machine throttled, except under stress tests with no relevance to real world usage, and there, the Vega Pro 20 equipped machine throttled considerably less. It is very much possible that the Vega Pro 20 GPU draws more power than the 560X, I still need to test it out more rigorously, but its not something that you will notice in operation. Under load, both of the machines are loud.

Gaming: just a little bit (around 10% more FPS and less lag)

The difference in actual gaming performance is quite dramatic. Again, I am talking as someone who tried games on both machines. I didn't get a change to play too many games yet, but I could crank up the settings in every title I've tested so far and the gameplay was very smooth. With 560X and the same settings I was getting jerky slideshow and had to disable a lot of visual effects to have satisfactory experience.

So yes, if you like playing games sometimes, but have no need (or desire) to invest into a proper gaming machine, Vega Pro 20 can make a rather decent gaming laptop out of your workhorse. Which is a great option to have.
[doublepost=1544142212][/doublepost]

It has different heatsink to accomodate the memory but nothing suggest that thermals are different...

What I've seen so far leads me to believe that power management on the Vega-equipped MBP works differently. The system seems to manage the power and clock of CPU and GPU dynamically, based on actual demand. If this is correct, it could explain why Vega models seem to show better CPU performance (I see round 10% increase from my previous i9).

 

[Ploki]

What I've seen so far leads me to believe that power management on the Vega-equipped MBP works differently. The system seems to manage the power and clock of CPU and GPU dynamically, based on actual demand. If this is correct, it could explain why Vega models seem to show better CPU performance (I see round 10% increase from my previous i9).

Still, i dont understand how raw CPU benchmarks would be better since GPU is idle anyway, and at 45W power draw you hit thermal limit in matter of seconds.

How could such power management affect benchmarks, if anything, it should affect mixed usage cases.
Also, couldnt power management be addressed via firmware update?

 

[shansoft]

From Dave 2D. Might actually be a bigger difference on Windows - or with games that like Vega more than Nvidia (like Doom).

Based on those data...

HoST is 20% faster
Fortnite is 22% faster
SC2 is 18% faster

Based on the data, it seems like he is running on the Apple drivers, which is at least a year or two older than the one from AMD themselves. With latest driver, you should be able to see a significant boost from 560X

 

[AvengerNX08]

I've used both the 560X and Vega Pro 20 models (both with i9) and I can most decidedly state that there is no noticeable difference in thermals. Neither machine throttled, except under stress tests with no relevance to real world usage, and there, the Vega Pro 20 equipped machine throttled considerably less. It is very much possible that the Vega Pro 20 GPU draws more power than the 560X, I still need to test it out more rigorously, but its not something that you will notice in operation. Under load, both of the machines are loud.



The difference in actual gaming performance is quite dramatic. Again, I am talking as someone who tried games on both machines. I didn't get a change to play too many games yet, but I could crank up the settings in every title I've tested so far and the gameplay was very smooth. With 560X and the same settings I was getting jerky slideshow and had to disable a lot of visual effects to have satisfactory experience.

So yes, if you like playing games sometimes, but have no need (or desire) to invest into a proper gaming machine, Vega Pro 20 can make a rather decent gaming laptop out of your workhorse. Which is a great option to have.
[doublepost=1544142212][/doublepost]

What I've seen so far leads me to believe that power management on the Vega-equipped MBP works differently. The system seems to manage the power and clock of CPU and GPU dynamically, based on actual demand. If this is correct, it could explain why Vega models seem to show better CPU performance (I see round 10% increase from my previous i9).

Fully agree with you here! Tested a number of titles, including a heavily modded Fallout 4 and Assassins Creed Odyssey, both maxed out and using 1200p resolution. Not once has my framerate dropped below 40. Mostly averaging between 50-70. That kind of performance would not be possible on the 560x. I didn’t even get half of that performance. Reverting to 900p didn’t improve things either.

As soon as matd of bootcampdrivers.com finally releases a workable version of the 18.12.1 driver, we will see even more dramatic improvements.

 

[CB98]

As someone who's owned both the 560x model and the Vega 20, I can tell you that the Vega 20 model is definitely more than 10% faster in games. More like 30% or 40%. It's very significant.

Does the Vega run cooler when attached to an external monitor?