Macbook Pro 2016 - GPU? AMD?

[codefinder]

Hi all,

I havn't seen any threads on this, so like to start a discussion on everyone feels about the AMD GPU that will probably end up in the Macbook Pro. I have been waiting to upgrade to the new MBP, especially coming from a 2013 MBA. But with the release of the new 10 series video cards from Nvidia, I'm kinda torn on buying the Pro or getting a window laptop (which will die prob after 2 years, lol)

I've recently started 4k video editing using Adobe, mainly on my desktop PC. Since I haven't owned a MBP, what's the performance like on the current MBP with dedicated GPU.

Appreciate all feedback.

Cheers

 

[DblHelix]

Considering I could edit 4K on my 2011 with dedicated gpu I think you will be fine

 

[jerryk]

Hi all,

I havn't seen any threads on this, so like to start a discussion on everyone feels about the AMD GPU that will probably end up in the Macbook Pro. I have been waiting to upgrade to the new MBP, especially coming from a 2013 MBA. But with the release of the new 10 series video cards from Nvidia, I'm kinda torn on buying the Pro or getting a window laptop (which will die prob after 2 years, lol)

I've recently started 4k video editing using Adobe, mainly on my desktop PC. Since I haven't owned a MBP, what's the performance like on the current MBP with dedicated GPU.

Appreciate all feedback.

Cheers

If you google around there are several benchmark tests. Also on YouTube, Hardware Cunuks(sp?) had a test of a times doing various Premier Pro operations on a rMBP versus desktop PCs.

 

[meme1255]

Uh, why exactly so many people want nVidia's GPUs? AMD Polaris 11 architecture is more power efficient than any available nVidia mobile GPU...

 

[cullenl87]

Gonna be the 480M

 

[keviig]

Uh, why exactly so many people want nVidia's GPUs? AMD Polaris 11 architecture is more power efficient than any available nVidia mobile GPU...

Do you have a source for that? Pascal is significantly more power efficient than Polaris when it comes to desktop GPU's, why would mobile GPU's be any different?

 

[gooseta]

It will be a 480m, not great, but decent enough

 

[Anarchy99]

considering the crappy keyboard, lack of IO etc (and i dont just mean the keyboard's failure rate) the best option is to get a 2015 rMBP with the m370x for if/when your on the go and then get eGPU when your at a desk .
personally i went with a GTX1070 but you can go with any AMD or Nvidia GPU.
if this wasnt a option, in my opinion your next best option is hackintoshing a PC.

 

[Count Blah]

Uh, why exactly so many people want nVidia's GPUs? AMD Polaris 11 architecture is more power efficient than any available nVidia mobile GPU...

CUDA with nvidia for starters.

For desktop, VEGA pulls significantly more power than nvidia. Vega 64 loses to GTX 1070 in some games, while pulling MUCH more power. I know we weren't talking games, but still.

But when in comes to iGPU, AMD has toned down the power. So it just depends on how much power you want. I doubt you will see a VEGA equiv in a laptop, unlike 1050, 1050 ti, 1060, 1070(a bit much for a laptop, I know)

It all depends on what image processing you intend to do on the go, versus your desktop.

 

[jerryk]

You guys are replying to a thread from 2016.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

For desktop, VEGA pulls significantly more power than nvidia. Vega 64 loses to GTX 1070 in some games, while pulling MUCH more power.

Vega power consumption only gets real bad if you keep it in the turbo power profile. Stick to balanced, or especially, power saver and it is quite a bit more frugal. You do lose some performance, but not that much overall since the card would just heat up and clock down on the turbo mode anyway, so overall loss is only a few percent; not even noticeable to the human eye.

Meanwhile, fans in powersave mode spin slower, card is considerably cooler and uses way less power. It's a really good tradeoff. Now, maybe you don't want a vega anyway for your desktop system because they're still roughly as expensive as a 1080ti due to the (partially collapsed) mining craze, and a regular GF1080 will be as fast or faster while using same-ish or less power and at a considerably lower price.

However I happen to like the red team; I have two ASUS Strix Vegas in my box and they're really great cards overall. Having a choice again is good, even if Vega isn't quite all we hoped for a year ago.

 

[Count Blah]

Don't get me wrong, I have a Ryzen 1700 system*. BUT - I went with a GTX 1080, because at time, AMD offered nothing comparable. Sadly, 1.5 years later, the same can also be said.



*BTW - I'm typing this on my 15" 2012 cMBP