New MacBook Pro and Gaming?

[maknik]

I don't know if this has been asked already elsewhere, but do we have any guess about whether the Macbook Pro with the Radeon 460 Pro will be able to run the Oculus Rift, now that they've lowered the specs to "current-generation AMD GPUs (RX 400 series)"? If our best guess is that the 460 Pro will be maybe 85% as fast as the lowest spec RX 400, the RX 460, will being 85% of that be enough to satisfy the new Oculus threshold?

(To forestall further flaming, please note that I personally have only a passing interest in gaming, no investment whatsoever in whether this computer or chip is truly "pro," and of course am not about to buy a dedicated gaming PC or eGPU or whatever. I just want to know whether my upcoming new laptop will let me dabble in VR, since it seems tantalizingly close to Oculus's new minimum specs.)

 

[JTK28]

I don't know if this has been asked already elsewhere, but do we have any guess about whether the Macbook Pro with the Radeon 460 Pro will be able to run the Oculus Rift, now that they've lowered the specs to "current-generation AMD GPUs (RX 400 series)"? If our best guess is that the 460 Pro will be maybe 85% as fast as the lowest spec RX 400, the RX 460, will being 85% of that be enough to satisfy the new Oculus threshold?

(To forestall further flaming, please note that I personally have only a passing interest in gaming, no investment whatsoever in whether this computer or chip is truly "pro," and of course am not about to buy a dedicated gaming PC or eGPU or whatever. I just want to know whether my upcoming new laptop will let me dabble in VR, since it seems tantalizingly close to Oculus's new minimum specs.)

http://hwbench.com/vgas/radeon-rx-460-vs-radeon-r9-290

The radeon r9 290 (or better) is what you need to run VR. The chart compares the rx 460 and r9 290. The radeon pro 460 is basically a mobile (lesser) version of the rx 460. You can already see how the 460 is no where near as good as the 290.

Its just not enough computing power.

 

[KarmaRocket]

I don't know if this has been asked already elsewhere, but do we have any guess about whether the Macbook Pro with the Radeon 460 Pro will be able to run the Oculus Rift, now that they've lowered the specs to "current-generation AMD GPUs (RX 400 series)"? If our best guess is that the 460 Pro will be maybe 85% as fast as the lowest spec RX 400, the RX 460, will being 85% of that be enough to satisfy the new Oculus threshold?

(To forestall further flaming, please note that I personally have only a passing interest in gaming, no investment whatsoever in whether this computer or chip is truly "pro," and of course am not about to buy a dedicated gaming PC or eGPU or whatever. I just want to know whether my upcoming new laptop will let me dabble in VR, since it seems tantalizingly close to Oculus's new minimum specs.)

From what I understand and read online (Note: I don't own an Oculus Rift) the minimum recommended spec is an NVIDIA: GTX 1050 Ti / GTX 960 or greater | AMD: RX 470 / R9 390 / R9 290 or greater. These are the Desktop cards. Most people recommend going with higher end cards. It seems the Radeon 460 Pro in the new MBP might be similar to an Nvidia GTX 960m/965m. Equal to or a little lower. If that's the case, it might run barely or not at all. The GTX 960 desktop card is a lot more powerful than the 960m/965m mobile chips. It's hard to tell since these are new cards and there are no proper benchmarks.

I probably wouldn't expect it to run. It was mentioned by Oculus that the main reason why the Rift was never ported to the Mac was mostly due to poor performing graphics cards throughout their lineup.

 

[maknik]

From what I understand and read online (Note: I don't own an Oculus Rift) the minimum recommended spec is an NVIDIA: GTX 1050 Ti / GTX 960 or greater | AMD: RX 470 / R9 390 / R9 290 or greater.

Thanks! I could be wrong, but I believe those are the old specs though. Oculus announced a few weeks ago a new frame-interpolation method that purportedly halves the GPU requirements for the Rift (https://developer.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-spacewarp/):

Oculus is releasing a new technology aimed at reducing system hardware requirements while maintaining content quality across a wider array of hardware. Asynchronous Spacewarp (ASW) is a frame-rate smoothing technique that almost halves the CPU/GPU time required to produce nearly the same output from the same content....

The hardware requirements for ASW are modest. This functionality has been enabled on all current-generation AMD GPUs (RX 400 series) and previous- or current-generation Nvidia GPUs (GTX 900 or 1000 series).


​

 

[kevin_tron_taco]

I play Starcraft 2 on my 2016 stock 13' just fine. The thing does warm up a bit though.

 

[KarmaRocket]

Thanks! I could be wrong, but I believe those are the old specs though. Oculus announced a few weeks ago a new frame-interpolation method that purportedly halves the GPU requirements for the Rift (https://developer.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-spacewarp/):

Oculus is releasing a new technology aimed at reducing system hardware requirements while maintaining content quality across a wider array of hardware. Asynchronous Spacewarp (ASW) is a frame-rate smoothing technique that almost halves the CPU/GPU time required to produce nearly the same output from the same content....

The hardware requirements for ASW are modest. This functionality has been enabled on all current-generation AMD GPUs (RX 400 series) and previous- or current-generation Nvidia GPUs (GTX 900 or 1000 series).
​

That's really interesting. Hopefully the Radeon 460 Pro will be able to run it. I'm still hoping Apple will release a refresh around May/June with a more powerful AMD or Nvidia card.

 

[MacBH928]

I play Starcraft 2 on my 2016 stock 13' just fine. The thing does warm up a bit though.

Starcraft II was released in 2010, its literally an old game released 2 years before the Wii U. Any new machine should run it smoothly by now.

a $2000 pro laptop should be able to play games at least from 2 years ago like TitanFall (2014) and Dark Souls II.

 

[OVERTASK]

I dont even understand gaming on a laptop. It just makes it extremely hot and probably damages it in the long run too. Would rather play games on a console or desktop

The GPU in the Blade actually runs a few degrees cooler than a desktop 1060, clocked lower but minimal FPS difference performance wise.
[doublepost=1478863729][/doublepost]

That's really interesting. Hopefully the Radeon 460 Pro will be able to run it. I'm still hoping Apple will release a refresh around May/June with a more powerful AMD or Nvidia card.

Hopefully Vega will be more impressive, however I am having my doubts. I am excited for Volta though, it may potentially be powerful enough to allow a reasonable enough panel resolution on the 2nd Gen VR HMDs.

 

[koyoot]

From what I understand and read online (Note: I don't own an Oculus Rift) the minimum recommended spec is an NVIDIA: GTX 1050 Ti / GTX 960 or greater | AMD: RX 470 / R9 390 / R9 290 or greater. These are the Desktop cards. Most people recommend going with higher end cards. It seems the Radeon 460 Pro in the new MBP might be similar to an Nvidia GTX 960m/965m. Equal to or a little lower. If that's the case, it might run barely or not at all. The GTX 960 desktop card is a lot more powerful than the 960m/965m mobile chips. It's hard to tell since these are new cards and there are no proper benchmarks.

I probably wouldn't expect it to run. It was mentioned by Oculus that the main reason why the Rift was never ported to the Mac was mostly due to poor performing graphics cards throughout their lineup.

Geforce GTX 965M is the same GM106 chip as is in GTX 960. It differ only by core clocks. There is no reason why Oculus would not run on Radeon Pro 460, unless - the devs are too lazy or Payed by Nvidia to not optimize the software for AMD hardware, also.

Threshold for VR in previous year was 3.5 TFLOPs of compute power(Compute power is EXTREMELY important for VR). Right now went down for Nvidia GPUs to just 2 TFLOPs. Minimum requirement for VR for AMD GPUs at least in Oculus is 5 TFLOPs. Something is not right.

And pay attention. VR is not only gaming. It is an experience.

 

[Wildkraut]

It's "MacBook Pro", not "MacBook Game"

Anyway, for Gaming better buy an PS3/PS4 or XBox360/XBox One, they offer much much more games.
Else you install Windows on this beautiful Machine , then you can play Windows Games just fine, but not with highest graphics settings. Well few macOS Games exist, but does not worth to mention.

When I play games, I play on my PS4, iOS devices or i play older Games on macOS Emulators.
Thats more than enough gaming devices for me.

 

[jjjoseph]

It's "MacBook Pro", not "MacBook Game"

Anyway, for Gaming better buy an PS3/PS4 or XBox360/XBox One, they offer much much more games.

Actually with BootCamp macs are great gaming machines with the right specs. I have a last gen 5,1 with a 980ti. Amazing in OSX and even better in bootcamp running Steam. It's an amazing machine all around. Games FLY. With all the mem decent cpu etc.

Xbox and PS have exclusive titles. But gaming is on the PC or something like SteamOS is up there with all the consoles and some would argue that it's better.

I think it's just Apple didn't put a decent GPU in the MacBook Pro. Even AMD admits it's not for gaming. It's just a bad choice all around for a GPU. Mediocre for OpenCL and bad for gaming. It's only good for something thin and low watt like a tablet or a super super super thin laptop.

 

[MacBH928]

That's really interesting. Hopefully the Radeon 460 Pro will be able to run it. I'm still hoping Apple will release a refresh around May/June with a more powerful AMD or Nvidia card.

I highly doubt it, they will release a strong spec bump within 5 months? The earliest adopters will get their macbooks in late Novemeber. They will get severe criticism for selling $2000 laptops that got outdated so soon especially that they could have built them in the first time around.

Maybe in 12 months.

 

[jjjoseph]

I highly doubt it, they will release a strong spec bump within 5 months? The earliest adopters will get their macbooks in late Novemeber. They will get severe criticism for selling $2000 laptops that got outdated so soon especially that they could have built them in the first time around.

Maybe in 12 months.

Apples super super super long release cycle is nothing new, and it's always frustrating when something hits the ground as NEW and it's specs will be extremely outdated by next spring. And the GPU even more so. I think if Apple let's people do TB3 eGPU their is hope. But looks like Apple is making it hard right now for vendors to make compatible devices. The 460 is a dismal GPU. Only benefit is super low power usage. Nothing decent in performance

 

[MacAlien]

That's really interesting. Hopefully the Radeon 460 Pro will be able to run it. I'm still hoping Apple will release a refresh around May/June with a more powerful AMD or Nvidia card.

They won't. AMD is not a good chip maker for gaming in general. And Nvidia, unless somethings changed are sparring with Apple. I pulled out my 2012 iMac with the 680MX Nvidia chip to see how it does vs. the 2015 MBP, both listed in sig, and goddamn did the iMac blow the MBP out of the waters. (one isn't retina, one is) MBP gets 25-40 fps in WoW on setting 4, iMac get 88+ fps on setting 7. Both considered notebook chips. Tried a few other games and saw the same differences in performance. I guarantee had Apple and Nvidia made up and Apple put Nvidia chips into their MBPs, then there'd be a different outcome. As most everybody said, this is not a laptop for gaming. TBH, this isn't a well balanced computer overall.

 

[Wildkraut]

They won't. AMD is not a good chip maker for gaming in general.

*Cough*,*Cough* you know what's driving the PS4 and XBox One, right?

 

[koyoot]

They won't. AMD is not a good chip maker for gaming in general. And Nvidia, unless somethings changed are sparring with Apple. I pulled out my 2012 iMac with the 680MX Nvidia chip to see how it does vs. the 2015 MBP, both listed in sig, and goddamn did the iMac blow the MBP out of the waters. (one isn't retina, one is) MBP gets 25-40 fps in WoW on setting 4, iMac get 88+ fps on setting 7. Both considered notebook chips. Tried a few other games and saw the same differences in performance. I guarantee had Apple and Nvidia made up and Apple put Nvidia chips into their MBPs, then there'd be a different outcome. As most everybody said, this is not a laptop for gaming. TBH, this isn't a well balanced computer overall.

If software is optimized for Nvidia hardware it will never be good performer on AMD hardware. All of Blizzard games are running better on Nvidia GPUs, because Nvidia works very closely with Blizzard on optimization. It will never happen with AMD, to the same degree as is with Nvidia for two reasons. AMD is not willing to do this, and Nvidia will not allow anyone to change the perception of their brand.

When Games are not bottlenecked by design, and are optimized perfectly for the API, like Vulkan or latest DX12 games you get the results that reflect the compute capabilities of the GPUs. For example, RX 480 is 10% slower in Doom Vulkan than GTX 1070, because it has 10% lower compute performance. What is the difference in for example Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare between GTX 1070 and RX 480? 12-16%.

You have compared GTX 680MX, a 100W GPU with M370X 30W GPU. The power consumption difference reflected the performance difference between them. People in this very forum are not exactly familiar with hardware differences and market segments the GPUs are actually placed in. Similar performance difference you would see when you would be comparing R9 395X with M370X. It has nothing to do with brand, like people on this forum like to claim, but with performance of the GPUs.

 

[MacBH928]

I pulled out my 2012 iMac with the 680MX Nvidia chip to see how it does vs. the 2015 MBP, both listed in sig, and goddamn did the iMac blow the MBP out of the waters. (one isn't retina, one is) MBP gets 25-40 fps in WoW on setting 4, iMac get 88+ fps on setting 7. Both considered notebook chips.

In 2009 I bought a core2duo macbook that when you play WoW it felt like you are playing on a jet engine, 7 years later the macbook still can't play WoW?...sigh

 

[henrikbjorn]

In 2009 I bought a core2duo macbook that when you play WoW it felt like you are playing on a jet engine, 7 years later the macbook still can't play WoW?...sigh

It can play WoW, used to play quite a bit, even doing raids, on my late 2013 rMBP.

 

[MH01]

It will be junk. I am going to try it with an eGPU (GTX 1070) this week and report back
[doublepost=1479034298][/doublepost]

It can play WoW, used to play quite a bit, even doing raids, on my late 2013 rMBP.

"Can" and "enjoyable" are two different things for me

Ive tried every top spec generation of MacBooks with wow an non of them met my expectations, but yeah you could play a game. If I have to spend hours playing I want it to be a good experience and smooth.

 

[MacAlien]

*Cough*,*Cough* you know what's driving the PS4 and XBox One, right?

Meant gaming on a Mac. Apple doesn't keep drivers up to date, and AMD doesn't do much to help either.

If software is optimized for Nvidia hardware it will never be good performer on AMD hardware. All of Blizzard games are running better on Nvidia GPUs, because Nvidia works very closely with Blizzard on optimization. It will never happen with AMD, to the same degree as is with Nvidia for two reasons. AMD is not willing to do this, and Nvidia will not allow anyone to change the perception of their brand.

When Games are not bottlenecked by design, and are optimized perfectly for the API, like Vulkan or latest DX12 games you get the results that reflect the compute capabilities of the GPUs. For example, RX 480 is 10% slower in Doom Vulkan than GTX 1070, because it has 10% lower compute performance. What is the difference in for example Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare between GTX 1070 and RX 480? 12-16%.

You have compared GTX 680MX, a 100W GPU with M370X 30W GPU. The power consumption difference reflected the performance difference between them. People in this very forum are not exactly familiar with hardware differences and market segments the GPUs are actually placed in. Similar performance difference you would see when you would be comparing R9 395X with M370X. It has nothing to do with brand, like people on this forum like to claim, but with performance of the GPUs.

GPU comes down to brand. If Apple or AMD worked with game developers and such, we'd all be singing a different tune but they do not apart from consoles. Blizzard has said numerous times they've tried working with both companies and neither budge enough, so you're right that Blizzard games work better with Nvidia chips. My original point still stands, AMD is the inferior GPU. Apple doesn't help with they do not keep their software and driver up to date to meet the demands. They've no inclination to. Both chips are notebook chips. Can go on about power consumption but nobody can deny the "top" chip from 2015 performs well below that from 2012. I highly doubt the 2016 chip will fair much better. Benchmarks have yet to prove otherwise.

In 2009 I bought a core2duo macbook that when you play WoW it felt like you are playing on a jet engine, 7 years later the macbook still can't play WoW?...sigh

WoW has changed quite a bit in 7 years. =P

 

[koyoot]

GPU comes down to brand. If Apple or AMD worked with game developers and such, we'd all be singing a different tune but they do not apart from consoles. Blizzard has said numerous times they've tried working with both companies and neither budge enough, so you're right that Blizzard games work better with Nvidia chips. My original point still stands, AMD is the inferior GPU. Apple doesn't help with they do not keep their software and driver up to date to meet the demands. They've no inclination to. Both chips are notebook chips. Can go on about power consumption but nobody can deny the "top" chip from 2015 performs well below that from 2012. I highly doubt the 2016 chip will fair much better. Benchmarks have yet to prove otherwise.

Let me repost something that has appeared on another forum:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...gamegpu-the-rest.2488968/page-8#post-38524388

You have to be incredibly stupid to not see that games are optimized for specific architectures, and one games prefer AMD and others Nvidia. Arguing about one brand being better from the other shows rather your level of intellect, rather than anything more.

Optimization of software decides everything here. Compare the differences in Vulkan between RX 480 and GTX 1070(!) for example. The difference in performance between them two is 10%. Why? Because that is the difference in compute performance between the two GPUs. 5.8 TFLOPs vs 6.5 for GTX 1070.

In the context of MBP: How would behave 1.86 TFLOPs GTX 1050 Ti downclocked to this level of performance, compared to Radeon Pro 460 which would had 1.86 TFLOPs, in equally optimized software?

And you are denying simple fact that AMD is inferior GPU, because it is lower power GPU. It is like comparing GTX 1050 with GTX 1080. Not seeing this and adding whole story, shows level of intelect, rather than anything else.

Yes. You are correct, that M370X is slower than GTX 680MX. There are reasons for this, not having anything to do with brand. Its just different markets they are placed. Your first post made sound like it is brand "thing".

 

[maknik]

Speaking to my VR question above, now that the laptops have begun to arrive, it looks based on various benchmarks that the Pro 460 is quite close to the RX 460 and the lowest end GTX 9xx cards, so if Oculus decides to support it, it seems likely it could meet the lowest-end requirement for the Rift under the newly lowered specs allowed by their ASM frame interpolation.

 

[Uplift]

I'm confused about the GPU discussion on the main page.

I have the 370X, the new MBP has Pro 450, which is better?

AMD Radeon Pro 450 (2GB)
AMD Radeon R9 M370X (2GB)

I guess the article is mainly talking about external displays but what about the native MacBook display?

I know Macs aren't gaming machines but I do use mine to play WOW and some emulators, it generally runs fine but I like to stay current so it can keep speeds and graphics as good as they can be.

I'd be going from the M370X to the pro 450.

Worth it?

 

[koyoot]

Its EXACTLY the same level of performance. Polaris architecture however offers highly improved geometry performance if your application requires that - you will see improvement. Clock for clock Polaris(Radeon Pro 450) is around 15-18% faster than M370X, despite having exactly the same number of cores, exactly the same core and memory clocks. What differs them is the geometry performance.

 

[DestinyCalls]

the 450 and the 370x are equal as far as i know