Does MBP 2017 15" have 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports each at 40Gbps? Why not in Winodws laptops?

[leman]

First result that pops up for me.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/macbook-pro-15-mid-2017-thermal-throttling.811260/

Your forum links just has a guy asking whether the MBP throttle and two others telling him to watch Rossman videos. I see no evidence there that any throttling occurs. Moreover, I gave you links to a serious, respected review platform that shows that there is no throttling occurring on the MBP. This is in line with my own findings. I test all laptops we purchase, so far the 2016/2017 MBP has the best thermal behaviour of all of them.

Luis Rossman has plenty of videos which prove not only throttling, but plenty of other issues with several of the mbp from different models and generations.

Luis Rossman is a self-proclaimed Apple hater who uses his technical knowledge to manipulate the viewer. He is doing it by withholding relevant information. Like that time he demonstrated that the 2016 MBP suffers from USB WiFi interference, but conveniently failed to inform the viewer that this is a known issue with USB3 protocol that affects all hardware and all manufacturers. Which he, as a professional repairman should be aware of.

This is why I am not accepting Rossman as a credible source. I prefer to get my information by comparing what different reviewers and users say and then test the hardware myself to see what makes sense and what not.

But it just seems that everyone else happens to have less throttling,

Again, according to what critical source? I want to see some hard evidence, aka. tests that evaluate the performance under sustained high load. So far, the only people who do that is notebookcheck. And they make it very clear which laptops throttle and which don't.

... while having a more powerful processor/gpu

Again, what more powerful processor are you talking about? MBP is one of the rare models that ships with i7-7820HQ stock and has an optional i7-7920HQ upgrade. Most other laptops are stuck at 7700HQ.

.. while costing less

... which brings us back to the original topic of this thread. They cost less since they use cheaper components, simpler data buses and simpler mainboard design. And of course, Apple takes a healthy margin But I don't think that the margin alone is responsible for the high price. There is an obvious difference in the tech. For example, how many laptops have proper USB surge protection?

If that were the case, then why sacrifice the temps for less fan noise? We all know what high temps do to electronics.

Do we? Urban myths are not really knowledge. If the manufacturer of the CPU says that it is safe to run it on 100 C, then I rather believe them than some random guy on a forum.

 

[caramelpolice]

I have also tested my 2.7GHz 2016 15" Pro with Intel Power Gadget under several different workloads and games in both macOS and Windows, and not only have I never seen it throttle below the advertised 2.7GHz under load, but I often see it turbo-boosting to 3.0-3.2GHz even under pretty heavy load. Of course, it's often running at 90C+ in these cases, but that's just how Apple rolls.

Louis Rossmann is full of ****, as he often is.

 

[maflynn]

Correction: I googled a bit, and it seems that Dell only connects 2x PCI-E lanes to its thunderbolt controller, again, most likely in order to save costs/reduce the mainboard complexity.

I think the latest dell models have full channel support now for the TB, so that's one manufactoer that does support it.
[doublepost=1528108090][/doublepost]

Louis Rossmann is full of ****, as he often i

Completely, he may have some kernels of truth, but I think his so biased and the tests he ran are mostly rigged to fail on apple that I ignore anything he says

 

[Regime2008]

And that is fine everyone uses what suits them best. I feel exactly the opposite Apples products give me far more flexibility. I can run any OS and therefore any software on my mac, although I far prefer OSX and rarely boot into windows and I abandoned Linux years ago. I consider apples designs the best compromise for a laptop thin and light and more than powerful enough for my work flow with a good battery life, great integration with other apple products and the current line up has brilliant I/O flexibility and amazing screens, why would I buy anything else?!!

Which is completely fine, but when it comes to moderate to heavy lifting power, there seems to be nothing in Apple's lineup. If I want the latest and greatest processor, I can't find that at Apple. Whether it be a desktop/laptop. I need a good Gpu, which automatically dismisses Apple's entire product line. While it may work for those who blog and do simple photo editing, etc, it seems to not appeal to those who need a workhorse. My biggest complaint has always been the gpu's and now, all of the soldered mess they are doing to their boards.

 

[leman]

Which is completely fine, but when it comes to moderate to heavy lifting power, there seems to be nothing in Apple's lineup. If I want the latest and greatest processor, I can't find that at Apple.

I don't understand what you are saying. If you want the latest and greatest CPU, your choice up to now was either Apple or a PC Workstation, since no other computer used them.

 

[Regime2008]

Your forum links just has a guy asking whether the MBP throttle and two others telling him to watch Rossman videos. I see no evidence there that any throttling occurs. Moreover, I gave you links to a serious, respected review platform that shows that there is no throttling occurring on the MBP. This is in line with my own findings. I test all laptops we purchase, so far the 2016/2017 MBP has the best thermal behaviour of all of them.




Luis Rossman is a self-proclaimed Apple hater who uses his technical knowledge to manipulate the viewer. He is doing it by withholding relevant information. Like that time he demonstrated that the 2016 MBP suffers from USB WiFi interference, but conveniently failed to inform the viewer that this is a known issue with USB3 protocol that affects all hardware and all manufacturers. Which he, as a professional repairman should be aware of.

This is why I am not accepting Rossman as a credible source. I prefer to get my information by comparing what different reviewers and users say and then test the hardware myself to see what makes sense and what not.




Again, according to what critical source? I want to see some hard evidence, aka. tests that evaluate the performance under sustained high load. So far, the only people who do that is notebookcheck. And they make it very clear which laptops throttle and which don't.



Again, what more powerful processor are you talking about? MBP is one of the rare models that ships with i7-7820HQ stock and has an optional i7-7920HQ upgrade. Most other laptops are stuck at 7700HQ.



... which brings us back to the original topic of this thread. They cost less since they use cheaper components, simpler data buses and simpler mainboard design. And of course, Apple takes a healthy margin But I don't think that the margin alone is responsible for the high price. There is an obvious difference in the tech. For example, how many laptops have proper USB surge protection?




Do we? Urban myths are not really knowledge. If the manufacturer of the CPU says that it is safe to run it on 100 C, then I rather believe them than some random guy on a forum.

Which is why I said to Google it. One source say's it doesn't throttle, yet other users say differently? If you would like a better link, check this out.
https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2017-sustained-performance.html

You may not like Luis, which is perfectly fine, but he states a lot of facts, and shows how Apple have made loopholes to refuse honoring their own warranty's, and several other anti-consumer things.

Check my previous link.

The same exact website you spoke of earlier shows 10+ computers vs 1 from Apple, with the i7-7820HQ cpu.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-7820HQ-Notebook-Processor.189820.0.html

Would I take proper usb surge protection over expandable storage, ram, ports, gpu, etc? Definitely not, but that is a personal preference anyways. But then again Apple is not the only one with usb surge protection...

Well there is a reason that there are many threads/videos about throttling, thermals, dead gpu's, etc. Not just computers, but electronics in general, fare better in cooler environments than not. There are very few exceptions, but this is a general rule for computers, amplifiers, and things of the sort.

 

[maflynn]

PC Workstation, since no other computer used them.

Maybe its semtentics or how you use the term PC Workstation which I may be getting confused.

I consider a PC workstation a high powered (and extremely expensive) computer, running high end equipment, i.e., xeon processors, and the like.

However most consumer facing computers from Dell, Lenovo, Asus or my current favorite, Razer offer better more powerful CPUs and GPUs and increased max ram.

I can now get a 6 core processor for a laptop from any number of makers, except from Apple. GPUs are another issue as apple doesn't seem interested in providing anythign with power, but we shouldn't be surprised since this apple's MO since the powerbook era.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

I don't understand what you are saying. If you want the latest and greatest CPU, your choice up to now was either Apple or a PC Workstation, since no other computer used them.

Agreed apple always uses the most powerful available CPU's for their thermal design for each product whilst in development. Updates take a little longer with apple as they actually optimise the hardware and software when they update the silicon unlike the competition who just throw it in and hope for the best, they will also wait for the best silicon rather than use underpowered silicon just to be the first on a new architecture, unlike others who will just throw in what's available for marketing purposes.
[doublepost=1528111980][/doublepost]

Maybe its semtentics or how you use the term PC Workstation which I may be getting confused.

I consider a PC workstation a high powered (and extremely expensive) computer, running high end equipment, i.e., xeon processors, and the like.

However most consumer facing computers from Dell, Lenovo, Asus or my current favorite, Razer offer better more powerful CPUs and GPUs and increased max ram.

I can now get a 6 core processor for a laptop from any number of makers, except from Apple. GPUs are another issue as apple doesn't seem interested in providing anythign with power, but we shouldn't be surprised since this apple's MO since the powerbook era.

Those hex cores have been out for a month or two for mobile they will be in the next update or they will opt for the quads with built in vega graphics with HBM2 (I doubt this myself). See my post above for apple at least trying to get things right I'd rather wait a couple of months myself, patience is a virtue accepting that apple does things their own way in their own time is part of using their products if you don't like it use other products. The same goes for any other maker they will make choices and compromises I disagree with, that is fin,e I buy apple because they generally make what I want and I am prepared to wait for that when needed.

 

[maflynn]

Those hex cores have been out for a month or two for mobile they will be in the next update

No question they're a fairly recent release, but by the same token Apple has in the past dragged their feet over releasing spec updates. now the question is how long do we wait? In my case, I can put off the purchase a little longer but apple will lose out on my sale if they wait until the fall. Also consider the back to school crowd, if we don't see anything soon, and couple that with the keyboard issue, I suspect more people will be hesitent to spend 2 to 3 thousand dollars.

As for the GPU, Apple has a long history of using underpowered GPUs in their Macs, and tbh, I don't think that will change. Its not just a case of using Nvidia, but just not using the best available component.

 

[leman]

Which is why I said to Google it. One source say's it doesn't throttle, yet other users say differently? If you would like a better link, check this out.
https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2017-sustained-performance.html

https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2017-sustained-performance.html

They seem to talk about combined CPU/GPU performance, while I was talking about CPU. And yes, the CPU/GPU won't boost as hard if both of them are pushed at the same time, since the laptop cooling system will run out of its thermal headroom. Its just as with CPU cores — if you use single-thread workload, it can boost high, if you use multi-threaded one, its frequencies will be lower. I still don't see any reasons fo complain about the performance here, its still significantly faster than the 2015 model — in all scenarios.

If you need to use both the CPU and the GPU at the same time hard, get a large gaming laptop. Avoid things like Dell XPS or Razor Blade though, they have similar design limitations.

The same exact website you spoke of earlier shows 10+ computers vs 1 from Apple, with the i7-7820HQ cpu.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-7820HQ-Notebook-Processor.189820.0.html

Of course, since Apple only has one 15" model. And he's, of course, there are other laptops with fast CPUs, just not the mainstream ones. Look at your link, all others are EliteBooks, Precisions and high-end ThinkPads — all of them high-end mobile workstations and/or business laptops. Although that EliteBook ultrabook is super cute and clearly can't handle the CPU.

You may not like Luis, which is perfectly fine, but he states a lot of facts, and shows how Apple have made loopholes to refuse honoring their own warranty's, and several other anti-consumer things.

Ok, I will have look at couple more of his videos, even if I genuinely can't stand the guy But maybe you are right, and there is some interesting information there I have missed so far.

Well there is a reason that there are many threads/videos about throttling, thermals, dead gpu's, etc. Not just computers, but electronics in general, fare better in cooler environments than not. There are very few exceptions, but this is a general rule for computers, amplifiers, and things of the sort.

A lot of common knowledge here comes from the overclocking community, which is a very different world. When you are running a microchip above its specification, you need every bit of help to maintain that stability. Not to mention that they measure their temperatures differently, since temprerature sensors are located differently between desktop and laptop CPUs...

And, yes, electrical equipment degrades with age and the higher the temperature, the faster the degradation. However, we are talking about time spans here which are ridiculous for consumer electronics. I don't care if my CPU lives 25 years or 10 years if I will replace the machine after 5 years top. If my hardware can be safely run at 100 degrees (according to its manufacturer, in this case Intel), I don't have any reservations running it at this temperature.
[doublepost=1528112884][/doublepost]

As for the GPU, Apple has a long history of using underpowered GPUs in their Macs, and tbh, I don't think that will change. Its not just a case of using Nvidia, but just not using the best available component.

Depends on what you mean by "best available". You'd be hard pressed to find a GPU with better perf/watt than the Polaris in the current MBP. It is just slightly below the 1050 GTX (20% or so), but also consumes less power.

 

[maflynn]

Depends on what you mean by "best available". You'd be hard pressed to find a GPU with better perf/watt than the Polaris in the current MBP. It is just slightly below the 1050 GTX (20% or so), but also consumes less power.

Does apple use the Polaris?

Also there many laptops that use GTX1060, 1070, 1080, so I'm not hard pressed in finding a better GPU. Yes some of them use more wattage, but I'm referencing apple's desire to use less powerful GPUs. By the way, the max-q varients of the 1060 and 1070 offer a nice balance of performance and wattage.

 

[leman]

I consider a PC workstation a high powered (and extremely expensive) computer, running high end equipment, i.e., xeon processors, and the like.

With PC workstations I mean laptop brands such as Dell Precision, HP EliteBook etc.

However most consumer facing computers from Dell, Lenovo, Asus or my current favorite, Razer offer better more powerful CPUs and GPUs and increased max ram.

Consumer models from Dell, Lenovo, Asus or Razer usually don't offer high-end CPUs. E.g. the 2017 Razer or Dell XPS used the i7-7700HQ as fastest options, while Apple offered two CPU tier up as well.

I can now get a 6 core processor for a laptop from any number of makers, except from Apple.

Wait, wait, now we are comparing apples and oranges. Sure, Apple hasn't upgraded to Coffee Lake yet, so their fastest CPUs will be nominally slower than other laptops who already have. But that is quite opportunistic way of looking at it. So far, I am describing the state of affairs that was valid just a month ago, before the Coffee Lake laptops were available. Once Apple adopts them as well, we can have a look whether it still holds or not.

BTW, Razer Blade 2018 is still stuck at i7-8750H. There are two higher-tier CPUs in the family: i7-8850H and i7-8950HK. Interestingly enough, Dell XPS this year comes with CPU options as well. I'm curious to see how it will be able to accommodate these possibly hotter chips... it already has difficult in dealign with a single 7700HQ...
[doublepost=1528114224][/doublepost]

By the way, the max-q varients of the 1060 and 1070 offer a nice balance of performance and wattage.

And even then they are twice as hot as the hottest GPU ever used in an Apple laptop...

 

[maflynn]

Consumer models from Dell, Lenovo, Asus or Razer usually don't offer high-end CPUs. E.g. the 2017 Razer or Dell XPS used the i7-7700HQ as fastest options, while Apple offered two CPU tier up as well.

You wrong. Apple uses the I7-7700HQ and Dell used the same processor in the XPS line.

As for the the Dell Precision (a PC workstation) and your saying its the only comparble option against the MBP, its actually less expensive then the MBP, so that hurts your argument even more. You get workstation quality parts from Dell and its less expensive then MBP

Wait, wait, now we are comparing apples and oranges. Sure, Apple hasn't upgraded to Coffee Lake yet, so their fastest CPUs will be nominally slower than other laptops who already have. But that is quite opportunistic way of looking at it. So far, I am describing the state of affairs that was valid just a month ago, before the Coffee Lake laptops were available. Once Apple adopts them as well, we can have a look whether it still holds or not.

You missde my point. If I need a computer today, do I buy a Dell XPS for under 2k or even a Dell Precision at the 2k mark, or do I spend 2,500 for a MBP that comes with last years processors.

And even then they are twice as hot as the hottest GPU ever used in an Apple laptop...

Yep, but unlike apple I can run VR on them. There's a reason why oculus dropped apple from its supporting hardware
[doublepost=1528115882][/doublepost]Let me just add I love my MBP, and I'm not against apple, but I'm not willing to defend them when there are products that are better. The hardware is just one facet of buying a computer, and living in the ecosystem provides a lot of intangible benefits.

My opinion is this, apple has in the past been slow to update to the latest version of Intel's chipsets. I beleive they even missed a generation and stuck on older models for an extended time, so the talk about apple's competitors being on current chipsets is apples to oranges is misplaced. Its comparing Apple's current model who's price quickly approaches 3,000 dollars to apple's competitors who's price point is lot less but use much of the same components.

GPU is another aspect that apple in my opinion has always used a much less powerful option. Heck, I remmber the days when apple undervolted the GPUs, and I understand why, increase battery life, but at the expense of GPU performance, this was eons ago, back in the powerbook days, but it shows their philosphy.

The thread is about thunderbolt and how apple uses all 4 channels but most others don't. I chimed in and the latest model of Dell does.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

No question they're a fairly recent release, but by the same token Apple has in the past dragged their feet over releasing spec updates. now the question is how long do we wait? In my case, I can put off the purchase a little longer but apple will lose out on my sale if they wait until the fall. Also consider the back to school crowd, if we don't see anything soon, and couple that with the keyboard issue, I suspect more people will be hesitent to spend 2 to 3 thousand dollars.

As for the GPU, Apple has a long history of using underpowered GPUs in their Macs, and tbh, I don't think that will change. Its not just a case of using Nvidia, but just not using the best available component.

They again use the best available component within their thermal design. The Nvidia just don't cut it at 35w its that simple. You can disagree with their design philosophy that is cool, in which case, again, don't buy their products. As you pointed out, its what they've always done, a middling performance, lower power use GPU that is good for pro apps but not brilliant and is in no way optimised for gaming. Its what they've done for the last 15 years and expecting anything different is craziness.
[doublepost=1528116893][/doublepost]

Which is completely fine, but when it comes to moderate to heavy lifting power, there seems to be nothing in Apple's lineup. If I want the latest and greatest processor, I can't find that at Apple. Whether it be a desktop/laptop. I need a good Gpu, which automatically dismisses Apple's entire product line. While it may work for those who blog and do simple photo editing, etc, it seems to not appeal to those who need a workhorse. My biggest complaint has always been the gpu's and now, all of the soldered mess they are doing to their boards.

The 15 inch MBP with FCPX is as fast as anything on the market for video editing short of a massive 1080 equipped behemoth. The Imac pro has the 6th fastest video card available in it, the vega 64 comes in just behind the 1080 and 3 variants and the titan that is it. Hardly rubbish and the configurations with xeons and 5K screens are a bit of a bargain compared to workstations from other vendors.

If you need dual video cards and SLI etc etc etc then macs are currently not for you, that simple get out and go PC. The Upcoming Mac pro may change that but that's a wait and a risk you take.

 

[leman]

You wrong. Apple uses the I7-7700HQ and Dell used the same processor in the XPS line.

Yes, but Apple also offers options to have a faster CPU, while Dell XPS or Blade doesn't even have that option!

As for the the Dell Precision (a PC workstation) and your saying its the only comparble option against the MBP, its actually less expensive then the MBP, so that hurts your argument even more. You get workstation quality parts from Dell and its less expensive then MBP

Maflynn, that is the price for a machine without a dGPU, a crappy 1920x1080 display, 8GB RAM and a 1TB HDD. Here is a config with 16GB RAM, an Nvidia Quadro P2000, a 4K display and a fast 512GB SSD (btw, its still with slower WiFi and the small battery package):

A MBP with comparable specs is $2,999. And yes, it still doesn't have the new-gen GPU, so its not a good buy now. But we are just comparing pricing, and once the MBP gets Coffee Lake, it will probably cost the same.

You missde my point. If I need a computer today, do I buy a Dell XPS for under 2k or even a Dell Precision at the 2k mark, or do I spend 2,500 for a MBP that comes with last years processors.

Oh you are perfectly right. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone to buy a MB before they are upgraded to 8th gen at this point. But still, we are talking about available options under normal circumstances, not under what happens within 2-3 months of generation transition...

My opinion is this, apple has in the past been slow to update to the latest version of Intel's chipsets. I beleive they even missed a generation and stuck on older models for an extended time, so the talk about apple's competitors being on current chipsets is apples to oranges is misplaced.

That has happened a few times, but there were reasons. One was some time ago, where Intel has released new CPUs that were incompatible with Nvidia's CPU chipsets. If Apple adopted them, they would get slightly faster CPUs but would have to use a much slower GPU. Then there was a slow Skylake adoption — we don't know why exactly, but I still believe that they were waiting for volume availability of Iris Pro models, before Intel canned them all.

And since Coffee Lake is only really available since a few weeks, its still too early to assume that Apple will be very late in adopting it. After all, they still might announce new models today (I know, I know, Mark Gurman says not to get the hopes up).

 

[Regime2008]

The 15 inch MBP with FCPX is as fast as anything on the market for video editing short of a massive 1080 equipped behemoth. The Imac pro has the 6th fastest video card available in it, the vega 64 comes in just behind the 1080 and 3 variants and the titan that is it. Hardly rubbish and the configurations with xeons and 5K screens are a bit of a bargain compared to workstations from other vendors.

If you need dual video cards and SLI etc etc etc then macs are currently not for you, that simple get out and go PC. The Upcoming Mac pro may change that but that's a wait and a risk you take.

What about those who don't care about fcpx? Then it just becomes a subpar gpu, which is meh for those who need cuda, gamers, etc. You go on and on about thermal designs and TDP, but mention Vega 64? LOL. That card is horrendous when it comes to power consumption and heat. Also, look at the imac's. All of their GPU's are nerfed and throttled compared to the real-deal RX branded cards. RX >>> Pro lineup. Nvidia >>> RX + Pro. One of my main points were the GPU, and Apple does not have decent GPU's.

Edit: By nerfed and throttled I mean, under clocked and lower performance than the stock card.

 

[leman]

What about those who don't care about fcpx?

If you are not using Mac-optimised software, why would you want a Mac? Adobe etc. runs better on Windows anyway...

You go on and on about thermal designs and TDP, but mention Vega 64? LOL. That card is horrendous when it comes to power consumption and heat.

Is it though? That is an interesting thing. Yes, Nvidia Pascal offers more performance per watt — in games. And it is very likely that much of it comes from the rasteriser optimisations Nvidia does (that Vega is supposed to support but for some reason has turned off). At the same time, Vega supports flexible scheduling in hardware (what is commonly referred to as "async compute"), which makes it a more interesting GPU if your tasks are more complex. There is a reason why AMD GPUs are so popular with cryptocurrency miners. Or, as one can read here and there: "Nvidia is optimised for gaming, AMD is not".

Also, look at the imac's. All of their GPU's are nerfed and throttled compared to the real-deal RX branded cards.

iMacs have always used mobile GPUs... A laptop GTX 1060 is not a desktop GTX 1060 either (not even talking about max-Q, which should be called GTX-"further-underclocked" )

 

[Samuelsan2001]

What about those who don't care about fcpx? Then it just becomes a subpar gpu, which is meh for those who need cuda, gamers, etc. You go on and on about thermal designs and TDP, but mention Vega 64? LOL. That card is horrendous when it comes to power consumption and heat. Also, look at the imac's. All of their GPU's are nerfed and throttled compared to the real-deal RX branded cards. RX >>> Pro lineup. Nvidia >>> RX + Pro. One of my main points were the GPU, and Apple does not have decent GPU's.

Edit: By nerfed and throttled I mean, under clocked and lower performance than the stock card.

The Imac pro runs both the vega 64 and 56 at full throttle with no heat issues or slowdowns/throttling. Its a workstation class all in one the only one of its kind and by all reports it works pretty much perfectly.

the Imac is not a workstation class AOI and is priced and specced accordingly.

 

[maflynn]

the Imac is not a workstation class AOI and is priced and specced accordingly.

I'd say it is a workstation class machine, not too many consumer class machines sport ECC ram or use Xeon processors.

 

[leman]

I'd say it is a workstation class machine, not too many consumer class machines sport ECC ram or use Xeon processors.

iMac, not iMac Pro

 

[Regime2008]

If you are not using Mac-optimised software, why would you want a Mac? Adobe etc. runs better on Windows anyway...



Is it though? That is an interesting thing. Yes, Nvidia Pascal offers more performance per watt — in games. And it is very likely that much of it comes from the rasteriser optimisations Nvidia does (that Vega is supposed to support but for some reason has turned off). At the same time, Vega supports flexible scheduling in hardware (what is commonly referred to as "async compute"), which makes it a more interesting GPU if your tasks are more complex. There is a reason why AMD GPUs are so popular with cryptocurrency miners. Or, as one can read here and there: "Nvidia is optimised for gaming, AMD is not".



iMacs have always used mobile GPUs... A laptop GTX 1060 is not a desktop GTX 1060 either (not even talking about max-Q, which should be called GTX-"further-underclocked" )

You just compared a desktop (imac) which uses a underclocked gpu to a laptop gpu? Why not desktop vs desktop gpu? The same card in a desktop will beat the same exact card in an imac. Guess what? It's the same thing when it comes to laptops as well. This further solidifies my point that Apple doesn't provide good gpu's in their lineup. In the pc world, Vega was a flop, as there was so much hype around it's launch, and it failed to deliver. Why get Vega when a gtx 1080 beats it in majority of cases, and is cheaper?

 

[leman]

You just compared a desktop (imac) which uses a underclocked gpu to a laptop gpu? Why not desktop vs desktop gpu?

Again: the iMacs have always used a laptop GPU. Doesn't matter how Apple calls them, they are laptop GPUs. Just as a laptop GPU is an underclocked desktop GPU. Its all the same chip anyway.

\In the pc world, Vega was a flop, as there was so much hype around it's launch, and it failed to deliver. Why get Vega when a gtx 1080 beats it in majority of cases, and is cheaper?

In the PC gaming world, maybe. For professional workflows, its a good card.

 

[bruinsrme]

Why are you here then ? I used to believe in the PC is choice, PC is cheaper BS until I have a few Windows Laptops dying suddenly on me without reasons (hardware failures). I have completely switched to Mac and have not looked back.

I have been running MBPs for 5 years now. They have all run windows at lease 95% of the time.
All three have been running great even the one under the duress by my 18 yo niece.

 

[hajime]

At the Keynote, Apple mentioned about running three eGPU on a MBP. Is this possible only on the 15" version of MBP 2017? Is it 3 eGPU in one enclosure or three enclosures each with 1 GPU? Can we assume that they used ATI GPUs?

On the 13" MBP 2017, which two ports are Thunderport 3 running at 40Gbps? Supposing that you are typing, is it the two ports near the left hand? How can we tell?

 

[Regime2008]

Again: the iMacs have always used a laptop GPU. Doesn't matter how Apple calls them, they are laptop GPUs. Just as a laptop GPU is an underclocked desktop GPU. Its all the same chip anyway.



In the PC gaming world, maybe. For professional workflows, its a good card.

Soooo.... That's not a good thing. Why would I want a downgraded card in a desktop? If the imac's throttle with a cut down card, can you imagine using the real deal in a badly designed chassis? This it's why I say Apple chooses form over function. It's a no brainer to get the cheaper, but better hardware. I can guarantee more pros use nvidia than amd. By a long shot. Not for gaming, but for productivity. And it's obvious that Nvidia is the go to company for gaming.