Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New MacBook Pro and Gaming?

ultra7k said:
Really wonder why they went AMD this time around, did Nvidia not have the 16mm chips ready, or were they really just trying to maximize the battery?

But in all honesty, what gaming? It's not like it's a gaming machine to begin with, if you were going to plunk down that kind of cash, you could build a super solid gaming rig for half the cost - I can't imagine the strain on the GPU if you were trying to drive two of those 5k monitors while gaming at the same time lol. I guess they just included the gaming performance because they needed some other kind of measuring stick?

I'll just stick with my 2012 cMBP for now.
Click to expand...

I believe most tech sites have talked about how the AMD chips are very thin and that was the main concern for Apple. Nvidia actually offers better gaming performance for lower wattage but AMD GPU's are multipurpose and are better for content creation.

Meever said:
Expect to run most modern games in 1080p at low-mid settings.

The problem is the wattage. All the nvidia alternatives that spank the AMD chips in the MBP all draw twice as much watts. It's like comparing A extreme edition of a CPU with the mobile variant. Just not a fair comparison.

Really bums me out apple didn't keep the MBP similarly sized, slap on a SD card slot, MagSafe, better cooling and and larger battery. Would have let them put in a much more powerful GPU.... alas.
Click to expand...

You're wrong about Nvidia being more power hungry. Pascal offers significantly more performance for the same wattage than Polaris. A 1050m would offer significantly more gaming performance for the same power consumption.

As for the rest of your post, I 100% agree. They sacrificed everything for thinness. If I wanted a thin laptop, I'd look at the Macbook 12. There was absolutely no reason for them to apply such a stupid one-dimensional design focus to their "Pro" line. The sacrifices in power, connectivity, ease-of-use, etc. is simply too much for me. I have plenty of programmer friends. Half are already looking for another ultrabook to replace their 3-4 year-old MBPs. The other half are hoping this line fails and Apple at the very least restores their industry-leading chiclet keyboards next year instead of using their awful MB 12 keyboard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet, Mobster1983 and idunn
leman said:
The desktop Radeon 460 RX scores 60+ fps at 1920x1080 on a mixture of normal/high settings. Given that the mobile Pro 460 is probably around 10-15% slower, modern games will be very much playable on 1920x1080 or 1680x1050. Put differently: this is the first mac laptop that can actually play contemporary games at 60 fps ;)
Click to expand...

If no thermal throttling......
 
TooManyRichards said:
You're wrong about Nvidia being more power hungry. Pascal offers significantly more performance for the same wattage than Polaris. A 1050m would offer significantly more gaming performance for the same power consumption.
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to the fact that there is currently no mobile GPU Pascal offering in a similar TDP segment. As to the rest: I wouldn't be so sure until we see some benchmarks. Polaris seems to have its performance/power sweet spot at lower TDPs — look at 460RX vs GTX 1050 benchmarks. They perform very similarly, with Nvidia having a slight lead, but the TDP is the same. This is a different picture than what the more powerful cards show.

MacAlien said:
For the price tag on the 2016 MBP, it won't be worth it and I doubt it can run anything higher than medium settings in most games out there.
Click to expand...

It should be obvious that buying an MBP for a single purpose of it being a gaming laptop is just plain stupid. But it makes a fairly competent gaming laptop (performance between 960M and 970M) if one needs it to be. That is, if one primarily uses the MBP for work, but wants to play some occasional games here and then and can't be bothered purchasing a dedicated gaming machine. E.g. I am certainly getting a new 15" for work. Given that, its cheaper for me to pay $100 more and get the 460 Pro rather then spending $2000 on a dedicated, seldomly used gaming laptop.

P.S. It also should be clear that we are primarily talking about gaming under Windows here.
[doublepost=1477665433][/doublepost]
h9826790 said:
If no thermal throttling......
Click to expand...

Good point! Thats why I'm curious about benchmarks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxx Power, Mobster1983 and stickrunner
Spec for spec Windows and Mac laptop comparisons can be tricky. I may have a higher spec Windows laptop on paper but there are things like build quality.

Whereas my AW where I have been dealing with a broken left speaker and hardware compatibility/crashes/bsod issues in Windows 10 for months now, I had no such issues hardware wise or software wise from my 2012 rMBP.

For me it's Apples complete lack of interest in gaming and VR that drove me to Windows. They don't care about having decent GPUs in their Macs.

EDIT: eGPU support is the big x factor. If there is support for it on TB3 in Bootcamp then there is hope.
 
Last edited:
thomas1984 said:
Im no tech geek, so can some one explain to me what the new specs for the MacBook pro mean for gaming? I would Love to be able to run Fallout 4 at good settings (yes I know Id need to use boot camp) but was wondering if the new mack book pro can do this or should I go ahead with my plan of selling my late 2014 mack book pro and moving to a PC laptop?

Thomas
Click to expand...

A laptop of this kind for gaming? Unless you want to play games pre-2011, then go right ahead.
 
Baldrake said:
Don't exaggerate - I play all but the most recent games just fine on my 2012 MBP. The 2016 will be fine for moderate gamers.
Click to expand...
People play today's games, but people want them ULTRA HIGH DEF 4k AND MAX SETTINGS AND MAX EVERTYHING!!!1111oneone11!!

That won't be possible. Just get a gaming computer and be done with it. Cheaper and much more customizeable.
 
Apple did not set out to create a gaming machine, that is not what these devices are for. but, the likely specs of the Pro 460 which place it equal (ish) to a GTX 965M show that if you want to do some light/medium gaming, it should be able to handle most current titles at medium to high settings at fluid frame rates. If you want to be able to play every game totally maxed out, then build a windows gaming machine, and buy a GTX 1080 or something. but the bottom line is, that if the relative specs are correct, then this computer (with the Pro 460) should be able to play most of the games you want, while also being an editing/productivity machine. I dont think that anybody really expected this new macbook pro to be a gaming powerhouse, but it will perform well in gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WRONG and Baldrake
The AMD chips haven't been properly benchmarked but early guesses would place them at the low end for laptop gaming. Plus the 2GB video memory is going to be a huge limiting factor. This machine is probably not going to provide a great gaming experience, and there are plenty of better options available.
 
fxbeta said:
The AMD chips haven't been properly benchmarked but early guesses would place them at the low end for laptop gaming. Plus the 2GB video memory is going to be a huge limiting factor. This machine is probably not going to provide a great gaming experience, and there are plenty of better options available.
Click to expand...
Again, looking at the compute performance, the radeon pro 460 looks a lot like a GTX 965M, while the Radeon Pro 450/455 look like the GTX 960M, both of which seem to be capable gaming cards.
 
Clint_Barton said:
Again, looking at the compute performance, the radeon pro 460 looks a lot like a GTX 965M, while the Radeon Pro 450/455 look like the GTX 960M, both of which seem to be capable gaming cards.
Click to expand...
For reference:
Radeon Pro 450 - 1 TFLOPS
Radeon Pro 455 - 1.3 TFLOPS
Radeon Pro 460 - 1.86 TFLOPS

RX 460 - 2.2 TFLOPS

GTX 950M - 1.28 TFLOPS
GTX 960M - 1.4 TFLOPS
GTX 965M - 1.9 TFLOPS

GTX 1050 - 1.7 TFLOPS
GTX 1050 Ti - 1.98 TFLOPS
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet, Dribo, Sam Luis Obispo and 2 others
I got a vive and im not looking back... have not played a regular game since. Hope apple is working on some form of VR.

i've got a fever and the only prescription is more VR
 
  • Like
Reactions: symphara and Baldrake
I'm really hoping once the non-touch bar 13" MBP get in the hands of users we start to see some videos crop up of eGPU TB3 support in both macOS and Windows 10 via bootcamp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet
I like tech like ice t like women in body count... if it got buttons or a screen I will press it. Same goes for AR VR
[doublepost=1477676600][/doublepost]but this vive vr ... I urge people to try out a good setup.
 
inhalexhale1 said:
Which would place performance slightly below a 965m. Although notebookcheck has it ranked below a 960m on their benchmark list.
Click to expand...
Slightly might not be a good choice of word when you have 20% lower in compute power and 29% lower in memory bandwidth, albeit having perhaps half the power cap ("<75W" -> 35W).

It could be translated into a fraction if the memory bandwidth is kept constant, since not every application and game is bound by or scales linearly with compute. But unfortunately you have a lower memory bandwidth too, which is a critical factor.
 
Last edited:
If you want a gaming laptop take a look a the new Alienware machines, sure they ar thicker and heavier but they are fantastic value for money with the new Nvidia GPUs. The advantage of a thicker laptop is better cooling and so higher games performance. These new Macs are not going to offer that.
 
Trahearne said:
Slightly might not be a good choice of word when you have 20% less in compute power and 29% less in memory bandwidth, albeit having perhaps half the power cap ("<75W" -> 35W).
Click to expand...

I'm just going by what I've read. It'll be interesting when people have the laptops and can benchmark. I just find it disappointing that Apple customized their version of a 460 and made it a weaker card (or so it seems at this point). I wasn't hoping for a 470, but not surprised they didn't use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back