New MacBook Pro 15" Kaby Lake and Radeon Pro 560/555

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by BoxsterRS, Jun 5, 2017.

?

Worth the upgrade from a 2016 MacBook Pro 15" 2.9ghz Radeon 460?

Poll closed Jun 8, 2017.
  1. Yes

    23 vote(s)
    22.8%
  2. No

    78 vote(s)
    77.2%
  1. BoxsterRS, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017

    BoxsterRS macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    #1
  2. xmonkey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Location:
    CA
    #2
    So pretty much a rebadge on the dGPU bump. Good for 2016 owners.
     
  3. sublunar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    #3
    Well, a slight spec bump too. The base 15" came with Radeon Pro 450 (which you could upgrade to 460) and the top end model came with Radeon Pro 455 which you could upgrade to 460.

    The Radeon Pro 555 and 560 seem to be roughly analogous to the Radeon Pro 455 and 460 so the 450 has been ditched. There's a £90 GPU upgrade option on the 2017 15" base model from Radeon Pro 555 to Radeon Pro 560 which was the same as the option when it was on the top model.

    I think the jump from 450 to 460 on the base model 2016 15" was higher (£180?).

    It therefore represents better value for 2017 buyers.
     
  4. BoxsterRS thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    #4
    I paid $100 to upgrade from the 450 to 460. So it's a slight savings of $10 (new dongle)
     
  5. BuCkDoG macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    #5
    Basically the 560 and a rebranded 460 with like a 1% increase in speed. 1.86 TFLOPS to 1.9 TFLOPS and everything else is the same. The only thing is you do save the $100 dollars from the upgrade compared to last years so you get slightly better value. Overall a garbage announcement as no 32GB option for RAM yet making my 2013 MacBook pro hang around yet another year. So frustrating.
     
  6. xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #6
    Because your 2013 rMBP has 32GB of RAM?. If you need 32GB of RAM, how are you able to work on your 2013 MacBook Pro?
     
  7. BuCkDoG macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    #7
    Obviously my 2013 does not have 32 GB RAM but what I'm saying is a lot of folks are wanting a 32 GB option to future proof your investment since you tend to keep the machine for several years. I am able to work fine on mine to be perfectly honest but its more about future proofing and resale value down the road.
     
  8. xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #8
    Well Apple is at the mercy of Intel on this. We know Apple uses low powered memory and there is no laptop processor that supports 32GB of low powered memory yet until Coffee or Cannon Lake.
     
  9. BuCkDoG macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    #9
    I understand its just seriously frustrating to be honest. I mean this update to the 15in isn't even an update in my opinion. They throw in the 560 card at no cost so you do save $100 there and obviously Kaby Lake but otherwise nothing new to really make anyone upgrade from the 2016 version or earlier versions. I guess the one thing Im hoping for is if they fixed the sticking keyboard issues relating to heat. Does anyone know if that has been fixed?
     
  10. xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #10
    What exactly were people expecting this close to the release of the 2016 MacBook Pro? If they updated it in October, it would be a little different.
     
  11. BuCkDoG macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    #11
    They were expecting a reasonable GPU performance upgrade not a Rebranded 460 card. Something like an NVIDIA 10 card which is what everyone wants in the first place, a faster SSD, Kaby Lake, 32GB Option. Those would be my guesses for an upgrade.
     
  12. spronkey, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2017

    spronkey macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    #12
    **** we wouldn't have to say if Apple would make the machine 1mm thicker and fit two ram slots and a slightly larger battery to offset the higher power RAM.
     
  13. xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #13
    Um the SSDs are faster. There is no possible way to get 32GB of RAM on it unless they changed to desktop RAM. People keep forgetting that. Unless you want the U class CPUs which would be worse. No everyone does not want NVIDIA. FCPX and AMD work amazing together. Don't shove NVIDIA down my throat because it just does not compare. Apple software works best with AMD.
     
  14. BuCkDoG, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2017

    BuCkDoG macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    #14
    The SSD is NOT faster on the 15 in model dude. Only on the 12" MacBook is it faster. Check your facts. And your seriously going to try to tell me AMD is better than NVIDIA? CUDA > Anything AMD offers. This is a MacBook PRO not a MacBook efficiency. PRO users want PRO hardware not average hardware.
     
  15. xWhiplash, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2017

    xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #15
    AMD RX 480 VS GTX 1080 Ti in FCPX. 4K Export on AMD took 305 seconds and on NVIDIA took 1140 seconds. Look up the facts yourself.

    PRO users want PRO hardware? I use FCPX. AMD is what I need. It sucks if your software only uses NVIDIA. Apple will not intentionally HURT their products and HELP their competition. Until FCPX is written to use NVIDIA. Do not expect those cards. Simple as that.

    My mistake on the SSD. Though does it really need to be faster?
     
  16. vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #16
    Anyone expecting those things was living in a fantasy land. Not to mention, the SSD's are already blazing fast.
     
  17. BuCkDoG macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    #17
    I agree the SSD is already blazing fast just saying those are the upgrades that are always on the table for wanting. Not saying all of them are going to happen I mean come on its Apple were talking about ;)
    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2017 ---
    The SSD is already stupid fast I mean no complaints there. It really doesn't need to be faster if you want my honest opinion I'm just saying how fast tech grows generally that is what most people want/expect. I totally understand AMD with FCPX and I use it myself believe me. I just use other software that takes advantage of CUDA acceleration which is why I would prefer an Nvidia 10 card over the AMD as well as the driver support from Nvidia. I mean it is what it is. Im not saying the AMD GPUs are completely useless as they are more than fine for most consumers needs but we can always hope and pray. On a side note how about that iMac Pro? Lets buy that instead of a used car haha.
     
  18. xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #18
    Oh believe me. My custom built PC has a GTX 1080 in it. I got the Founders Edition when NO OTHER 1080s were available from third parties. I paid more for it, but it was totally worth it. It is nice for gaming and when I use the Adobe Suite. I just like my Macs to have AMD since I use Apple's software more than anything with them.

    Haha yeah. It will definitely be an upgrade to my 2010 Mac Pro though. I don't really care about the upgradeability. The ONLY thing I wish for is a Pro system without a monitor. The 2013 Mac Pro, while a failure for most people, is VERY nice for FCPX. And like I said, I do not care about tinkering inside a Mac. I have my custom built PC for that :)
     
  19. BoxsterRS thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    #19
    Isn't 32gb counterproductive for a portable laptop regarding battery life and design?
     
  20. xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #20
    Not if low powered memory can be used.
     
  21. finchna macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    #21
    disappointing to see that they used pretty much the same spec video chip -- there were several in the 500 series that might have made a bigger difference than the 555/560.
     
  22. vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #22
    I doubt the chassis could've handled the additional heat the processors higher than the 560 would've created.
     
  23. killermike2178, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017

    killermike2178 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    #23
    Seriously? Apple should just drop the "Pro" moniker for these 13"/15" toys, and rebrand them as the "MacBook Deluxe". Then, they should reintroduce a 17" retina 4K model notebook with a bigger chassis, larger battery, and better dGPU that rivals that of a 27" iMac with legacy ports, call that model the "MacBook Pro", and call it a day. Boom! Problem solved.

    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2017 ---
    What I want to know is will High Sierra finally unlock these "top-tier" dGPUs' (emphasis on the end-quotes) full potential running on MacOS, as opposed to having to do a Windows Bootcamp installation to make full use out of the Radeon Pro 560? I ask because I distinctly remember that despite having 4 GB of GDDR5 memory onboard the Radeon Pro 460 from last year's model, only 2 GB of that 4 GB was usable in MacOS Sierra, and it seems Apple was subconsciously telling everybody "Yeah, our software is lagging behind the times to the point that you have to install our arch-rival's OS to make full use of the hardware, sorry not sorry." I mean, they did say High Sierra's Metal 2 would be VR-capable, so maybe?

    Final rant: Why, in this day in age, after so many iterations of the Retina 15" MBP, does this model still only have a 720p Facetime Camera?! This is unacceptable to me, as there are 13" notebooks with 1080p webcams built-in! :/
     
  24. caramelpolice macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    #24
    ... what are you even talking about?
     
  25. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #25
    Its a minor incremental upgrade, what did you expect? Its not like there is anything better component-wise at the moment... And its a very decent upgrade from the 2015 or earlier MBP, especially where the GPU is concerned.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 6, 2017 ---
    Well, the AMD GPUs in the MBP are faster than any comparable workstation Nvidia card. On a more serious note, AMD is not better than Nvidia, they are more or less on par in terms of performance per watt. The only Nvidia GPU right now that could compete with the Pro 460/560 in the same segment is the GTX 1050, which is fasters imply because its specced for gamers (faster VRAM) while the Pro 450/560 are specced for stability (just like Nvidia Quadro's). In raw performance, the AMD beats Nvidia here.

    As to CUDA etc.... I think you'll generally find that Metal-enabled software will perform on the same level or faster, not to mention that modern macOS makes it very easy to use hardware acceleration in third-party apps (and this is a huge advantage it has over Windows or Linux). This is also the reason why FCPX performs so much better than competitor apps even on stronger hardware. Its not just about the size, but how you use it.
     

Share This Page