Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This has got to be one of the most stupid thread-starter I have ever seen, and yet we have had some very nice and constructive discussions regarding the technology specifications throughout the rest of the thread, which I guess was never part of the OP's original intention based on their juvenile actions thereafter. I have a funny suspicion that they might have some monetary incentive relating to the posted video.

Anyway, most of what needs to be said have already been said in this thread to answer/counter the thread starter. I just want to point out that as a physicist who codes on a daily basis with Apple's products, I have already ordered the new 13" with TB. Indeed I have used MBPs for many complex experimental and theoretical work, but I guess that's not "pro" enough by the definition of some people. Similarly, most of the scientists at CERN are probably pro-wannabes because they're using MBPs despite not working on visual or audio productions.

Seriously though, why are so many people hell-bent on the "pro" being referred to professional? It's more or less Apple's style of marketing to differentiate between its products in terms of power and functions. We buy and use the computer that we need, and our needs vary from one person to the next. Some might find the current specs adequate, whilst others might not. If you do not believe that the device can fulfill your requirements, then don't buy it. It's not like Apple is saying that this MBP can meet ALL your requirements. They've made a computer, tell you the specs and prices. The decision is yours alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmonkey
for me, this 15" MBP i can use it to work on xcode and fcp, if i want, for the next 5-6 years...now thats future proof and pro creating tool
 
Last edited:
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.

Hang on. My interpretation of workstation is a Desktop. Hence the confusion.
 
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.
M2000M has 640 core clocked at 1.038 GHz, resulting in 1.36 TFLOPs of compute power in... 60W Thermal envelope.

So 0.5 TFLOPs in almost doubled power consumption. 455 will be closer to it in terms of compute performance than RP 460.
 
There are gaming machines and there are creative production machines and certainly the MBP is the latter.....having said that I cancelled my 2.9/460/1TB due to graphic card issues and NOT due to the fact that it wont play games. I have had a TON of build quality issues with everything Apple for some time now and I just mentally cannot move forward spending $3600 to have issues...or not. I'm no longer gambling on Apple, I moved on for my laptop needs but still have the iMacs and iPhone.

Sidebar...The 2016 MB so called Pro 13" non TB I had for the first couple of weeks was actually a great little laptop but way too underpowered for me and I knew that when I bought it, the purchase was strictly made to see if the keyboard and trackpad was for me, it was I enjoyed them both however the trackpad could have had a much firmer click feeling as I thought the firmest setting was too weak.

I gave this 13" to my niece as an early Christmas present, it's perfect for her.
 
As a former supporter of Apple, active in the major Audiovisual Art & Design industry the new macbook announcement made me angry, for real. So we are paying 4k for running Apple Mail? In no way it deserves to use the word 'pro', and in no way they can justify the price.

A video on GPU:

I'm out. I hope a lot of you will make the same decision so that there might be some changes.

I think the problem with gaming performance on a laptop is that you need a baseline for comparison. Sure, 3fps is rank but what does your best alternative laptop provide? If another laptop just does it better given certain constraints like power metrics then Apple has a lot to learn. If Apple has the best GPU possible for the power envelope (or other metrics) then that suggests laptops are not up to spec for these types of game.
 
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.

I know that
:D
We spent months on the Waiting for Skylake debating over the Iris Pro 580.
It would have been an improvement confronted to the Iris 530, but given that those CPUs are almost missing by the market, Intel did really have some problems with them.
And I know that current CPU is not really outdated (hence my ""), but after 527 days of waiting, seeing a 365 days old CPU felt a little bit weird.
;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmonkey
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.