Actually there are some great changes in architecture for ddr4 which will make a big difference on the maximum clock speeds and a few other metrics in future computers. But at the moment they mean practically nothing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm out. Low-end gpu in 4k machine? Don't fool us.
- Thread starter phaselocked
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually there are some great changes in architecture for ddr4 which will make a big difference on the maximum clock speeds and a few other metrics in future computers. But at the moment they mean practically nothing.
I earn 140k with just a MacBook Pro from 2014 as a software engineer. Is that Pro enough? It still does the job very well. This is an awesome machine. And I am looking forward to the new MBP. I observe the same sentiments with my colleagues. Is the MacBook Pro a pro machine? Hell yes, everyone at my company (design and SW engineering company) is using one!
You probably want to do something that is better done on a desktop, such as gaming.
100% correct on mid level GPUs. Apple has never used a tier 1 card in the MBP.
100% wrong on flaming him for talking about gaming. Apple lists this as a selling point right there next to video editing. It's fair to discuss how it performs against other comparatively priced laptops.
Also, the "bro you probably can't afford it get a better job lolol" is really getting old.
Lastly, he's probably trolling. He replaced his post with, ahem....
Haha he probably created a new account to do this trolling, moderators have been trying to get his post back so every knows what's going on. But he's being juvenile again and putting such childish things in the post.
This was also the case during the transition time of DDR to DDR2 and to DDR3. A performance increase was never existent at the beginning and if, then in the 1-2% range.
The MacBook display is nowhere near 4K. This card can handle GTA V normal settings at native resolution at 45 fps+.
I don't get it.
Who expects to game at 4k on a laptop?
The 460 graphics solution in the Macbook Pro 15-inch is about 40% as powerful as the MOST POWERFUL mobile graphics card available for laptops. And the MBP 15-inch 2016 is very thin.
Anyone complaining about the 2016 MBP not gaming at 4k was never in the market for a 15-inch MBP in the first place. They never owned one. Not ever.
Who expects to game at 4k on a laptop?
The 460 graphics solution in the Macbook Pro 15-inch is about 40% as powerful as the MOST POWERFUL mobile graphics card available for laptops. And the MBP 15-inch 2016 is very thin.
Anyone complaining about the 2016 MBP not gaming at 4k was never in the market for a 15-inch MBP in the first place. They never owned one. Not ever.
Once again, not really Apple's fault other than their unwillingness to make a new notebook that's thicker than their past ones. The chip industry is moving at an absolute crawl right now to the point where the Pro 460 itself is a big achievement. The desktop RX460 performs almost identically to the 35w Pro 460 and needs 75w to do it.
Intel's CPUs have all but halted meaningful performance gains gen-to-gen, my late 2013 model is just as capable as my 2.9ghz 2016 in this regard. No one else is really near them and AMD is struggling to do any better, so it's just the state of technology at the moment.
Yes, it absolutely is disappointing and (surprising to the average user) that a $4000 laptop can barely run games at more than a slideshow at its native resolution, because that would be a killer experience if possible on such a beautiful display. Despite all this I'm pretty happy to be able to play Overwatch and BF1 at a much, much better clip than I could on my late 2013. It hit the point of actually being possible, where as before it was everything low and barely 720p to hit 30fps.
Intel's CPUs have all but halted meaningful performance gains gen-to-gen, my late 2013 model is just as capable as my 2.9ghz 2016 in this regard. No one else is really near them and AMD is struggling to do any better, so it's just the state of technology at the moment.
Yes, it absolutely is disappointing and (surprising to the average user) that a $4000 laptop can barely run games at more than a slideshow at its native resolution, because that would be a killer experience if possible on such a beautiful display. Despite all this I'm pretty happy to be able to play Overwatch and BF1 at a much, much better clip than I could on my late 2013. It hit the point of actually being possible, where as before it was everything low and barely 720p to hit 30fps.
4k doesn't refer to the gaming performance-based price of the laptop. Anyone who pays over a thousand dollars to upgrade the size of the SSD and processor KNOWS that's not for gaming purposes. That'd be like paying an extra $2000 for a nicer sound system, or leather seating, and going back to the dealer to ask why the car doesn't drive faster.
Faster processor.
Bigger SSD.
More cost. Better performance where processing speed or more storage is needed. Not in gaming.
The only optional upgrade that will (in practical scenarios) improve gaming performance is the GPU. The base processor isn't a bottleneck.
So in USD, it's sub $3k.
And the issue is that people are running games at 4k (resolution), and complaining that the laptop doesn't handle it. Just run the games at 1920x1080 and don't max out AA. Anti-aliasing and increased resolution is exponentially demanding. Any dumb ass can figure that out.
I was thinking maybe the reason so many people are complaining that the MBP is not a capable gaming machine is because they are not buying it as a "Pro user" for it's intended market of 3D renderers, 4k video editing, design apps, etc.
They are buying an allegedly "Pro" machine to play games and little else. Maybe they are disappointed that the premium price and "middle of the road" or "last year's hardware" is not as state of the art or capable as the price would suggest.
To me that says there are more entertainment and game customers than there are "Pro customers". Maybe that is where Apple is missing their target audience and the reason why they are taking so much heat. It is not what their actual customers are looking for, but their customers are trying to make it work and willing to spend $4K to do it.
They are buying an allegedly "Pro" machine to play games and little else. Maybe they are disappointed that the premium price and "middle of the road" or "last year's hardware" is not as state of the art or capable as the price would suggest.
To me that says there are more entertainment and game customers than there are "Pro customers". Maybe that is where Apple is missing their target audience and the reason why they are taking so much heat. It is not what their actual customers are looking for, but their customers are trying to make it work and willing to spend $4K to do it.
It's the right card , and the performance is on par where it's always been, the difference this time it's $4.3k machine .
So when it's over $1K over the previous maxed model, people are expecting more for their money. At $3.3K the gpu performance in a maxed unit would be right.....
[doublepost=1479881346][/doublepost]
Well given the new model is just faster than the 2015...yeah fastest in MacBook history, that does not make it closer to comparable workstations which have increased in performance at a greater rate than MacBook pros since 2012. Suggest you look at performance of a 2012 MacBook Pro to 2016 MacBook Pro ....it's been about efficiency and SSD...not speed.
[doublepost=1479881533][/doublepost]
His referring to $4K price.
For 4K gaming , the only card that can pull it off these days is the Titan x pascal , single card gpu. And the 460 is garbage compared to that, though it's the right card in this MacBook Pro
I've been gaming at 4K with a 980 Ti for over a year now. Haven't been able to trip it up with anything thus far.
I'm running maxed settings in 4K on Battlefield 4, Battlefield 1, Overwatch, Fallout 4, and others at 60fps. At least for me, it's been great.
This just proves people are complaining just for the sake of complaining. No, you don't need to pay $4.3k to max out game performance. You can pay as little as $2.599 to get the Radeon Pro 460 for the base 15" and have the same game performance. Even if you bump up the CPU, it's still around $3k.
The only reason you can pay over $4k now is because they added the super-expensive 2Tb option - which didn't exist before! Imagine if they, for example, sold Autodesk Maya bundled with the MBP - which costs $3500. So that you could get the maxed out MBP with Maya for $8000. Because half of that is Maya software. Would you complain that a $8000 computer can't play games?
In short: it's not made for gaming, but if you want to game on the new MBP, you can get the maxed out gaming experience for as low as $2.6k - and you can pay aditional $1200 for 2Tb crazy-speed SSD. Titles like "gaming on a 4K laptop" are clickbait, nothing more.
That is very true.
MacBook pros have never and never will be configured for gaming . If you want a gaming computer that will perform well get one that meets VR requirements, yes they are high but it will serve all your gaming needs.
I would suggest people google AMD 460 before ordering , the reality is that this is it a gaming GPU in any way .
To be really honest, the CPU.
It's not like that it's really "outdated", but I and other people were expecting the i7-6870HQ with Iris Pro 580, which could have helped increase graphic performance and battery life.
The current CPU has been available exactly by one year, so it feels kinda weird.
Nevertheless, it's still a great CPU.
No matter what all those "but but Kaby Lake?!" think
I don't know, it would appear that it renders out video much quicker that its predecessor (around the 3:30 marker and onwards)
Time is money.
Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of people throwing baseless claims without any kind of proof or external evidence. You want facts? Here are facts. Real-world workstations (just looking at Dell here, but other brands are more or less the same):
- Fastest Dell Precision 15 5000 (positioned as the portable workstation): Quadro M1000M w/2GB GDDR5. That card is somewhere between the 450 Pro and the 455 Pro.
- Fastest Dell Precision 15 7000 (weights 1kg more than the MBP): M2000M w/4GB GDDR5. About the same performance as the 460 Pro.
If you want to get faster graphics, you'd need to go to the 17" models, which are literally twice the weight of the MBP.
To sum it up: the 460 Pro is same speed or faster than any currently existing workstation laptop on the market, if we exclude really large laptops that weight 3.5+ kg. You statement that MBP is not comparable to other workstations in terms of its graphical performance is factually wrong. Maybe you should actually look at the marker first before making arbitrary, unfounded statements. Or better yet, show us a single workstation in the same thin-and-light class that would have better graphics than the 460 Pro.
Graphics as it is is ample for the basic UI functions, and the dGPU capable to handle all other operations. I believe the Iris Pro Skylake processors were having yield issues, and as much as they have been released, you will not find them on any mass market computer today yet. So the CPUs in there now, are not outdated.To be really honest, the CPU.
It's not like that it's really "outdated", but I and other people were expecting the i7-6870HQ with Iris Pro 580, which could have helped increase graphic performance and battery life.
The current CPU has been available exactly by one year, so it feels kinda weird.
Nevertheless, it's still a great CPU.
No matter what all those "but but Kaby Lake?!" think