New MacBook Pro and Gaming?

[koyoot]

Not quite, but the thing is, Apple sells this as a latest generation "Pro" machine. With the current specs it is not. Apple does not sell the Quadro. At any rate lets assume they sold it, while that hardware was considered "Pro" in the past, today's standards dictate it is ancient and not worthy of the "Pro" moniker. Just like a GTX 295 or GTX 285. You wouldn't call a machine using those a "Pro" machine.

And yes, lets agree to that.

I will ask this thing for 50th time in last few days: Find a GPU that is more powerful than Radeon Pro 460 and can fit in 35W thermal envelope.

Even GTX 1050 Ti down clocked to this level will have the same level of performance at best. Because desktop GTX 1050 Ti, 75W GPU has 2.15 TFLOPs of compute power. This, 35W GPU has 1.86 TFLOPs.

 

[nottimcook]

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

If you're serious about gaming, buy a Razer (or other) rather than an MBP.
If you're just a casual gamer, a mid/high spec MBP should be ok for games at medium/medium+ settings

 

[leman]

I will ask this thing for 50th time in last few days: Find a GPU that is more powerful than Radeon Pro 460 and can fit in 35W thermal envelope.

Let's even say 50W I am sure the new design can handle 50W with that fancy heat pipe and everything.

 

[jav6454]

I will ask this thing for 50th time in last few days: Find a GPU that is more powerful than Radeon Pro 460 and can fit in 35W thermal envelope.

Even GTX 1050 Ti down clocked to this level will have the same level of performance at best. Because desktop GTX 1050 Ti, 75W GPU has 2.15 TFLOPs of compute power. This, 35W GPU has 1.86 TFLOPs.

I will state this once again:

If you can't put in a Pro level GPU in the laptop, don't call it a "Pro" product. This is deceptive practice at its best.

 

[koyoot]

It is a Pro GPU, whether you like it or not. It has almost the same performance as FirePro D300 from Mac Pro but in almost 3 times smaller thermal envelope(D300 has 136W TDP).

 

[leman]

If you can't put in a Pro level GPU in the laptop, don't call it a "Pro" product. This is deceptive practice at its best.

Just curious, what is your definition of Pro level GPU? Because AMD markets the 400 mobile series as professional GPUs.

 

[jav6454]

It is a Pro GPU, whether you like it or not. It has almost the same performance as FirePro D300 from Mac Pro but in almost 3 times smaller thermal envelope(D300 has 136W TDP).

I fail to see where in AMD's site the laptop class GPUs are "Professional" class.

Link to Pro Class GPUs

Not even AMD lists Apple as a partner for their mobility (read: laptop) professional GPUs: Click Me

Where as I can find the Radeon "Pro" under the consumer side of things.

Yes AMD has them in their own private webpage here, but to be honest... who are the kidding. It's less powerful than their consumer alternatives. Here and Here
[doublepost=1478202684][/doublepost]

Just curious, what is your definition of Pro level GPU? Because AMD markets the 400 mobile series as professional GPUs.

Just answered this...

 

[koyoot]

I fail to see where in AMD's site the laptop class GPUs are "Professional" class.

Link to Pro Class GPUs

Not even AMD lists Apple as a partner for their mobility (read: laptop) professional GPUs: Click Me

Where as I can find the Radeon "Pro" under the consumer side of things.

Yes AMD has them in their own private webpage here, but to be honest... who are the kidding. It's less powerful than their consumer alternatives. Here and Here
[doublepost=1478202684][/doublepost]

Just answered this...

http://radeon.com/en-us/radeon-pro-graphics-debut-in-new-macbook-pro/

This is the actual link. Radeon Pro is AMD brand for professional GPUs.
Here is example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10140/amd-announces-radeon-pro-duo
Here is example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10518/amd-announces-radeon-pro-ssg-fiji-with-m2-ssds-onboard
Here is example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10521...wx-4100-wx-5100-wx-7100-bring-polaris-to-pros

Just because you are not informed, you are spreading misinformation over forums.

 

[leman]

Just answered this...

So you say that a professional GPU is whatever a IHV calls a professional GPU? Thats ok, but its also a bit weird. Because those professional GPUs are usually just clocked-down consumer gaming cards with extended driver support. And as koyoot has mentioned, above Radeon Pro is AMD's brand for professional GPUs. I though that you have some sort of performance criterion in mind.

 

[OVERTASK]

If you're serious about gaming, buy a Razer (or other) rather than an MBP.
If you're just a casual gamer, a mid/high spec MBP should be ok for games at medium/medium+ settings

Gaming laptop you say

 

[ConnorMcJeebus]

We all know the word "pro" is just marketing, right? Companies just use it so you'll pay more money for x product than y product.

If you're serious about gaming, buy a Razer (or other) rather than an MBP.
If you're just a casual gamer, a mid/high spec MBP should be ok for games at medium/medium+ settings

OP - this is your answer.

EDIT: I agree the use of the word "pro" by Apple in its latest machines are deceptive - especially the entry level 2 port (one taken up by the charger), non-touchbar, 13" MBP/MBA. If they're going to label that thing a "pro", they might as well label the rMB a pro, because there is a possibility that some "professionals" (e.g. lawyers, ballerinas, actors) will use one. Companies lose their credibility by doing things like that.

 

[aevan]

What about the 13" iris graphics? At the moment, I am used to my ultrabook with intel i5 3317U 1.7gh, intel hd 4000 and 4gb of ram. Yes I played Dark Souls 2, Diablo 3 and Overwatch on this. Yes it was lower than lowest possible performance.

On Iris graphics? You should be able to play Diablo 3 fine. Not sure about Overwatch. Probably playable at low.

 

[el-John-o]

Something that's been mentioned in this thread that needs pointed out.

The 2016 MacBook Pro 15" is NOT coming with the RX series of GPU's from AMD. So it is NOT the RX460 on the top tier one, for example. It's the Radeon Pro. This is really confusing because of AMD's arbitrary and meaningless number system. But the Radeon 460 Pro is not the same as the RX460. The RX460 is a mid-ranged chip edged towards gaming; and the 460 Pro is a 'content creation' chip designed to be best for things like 4k video editing and 3D creating. Which makes the most sense in a MacBook Pro, by the way.

Any benchmarks of the RX460 are worthless. As of today, 3 November 2016, there is exactly one computer on planet earth equipped with the AMD Radeon 450/455/460 Pro, and that's the not-yet-shipped 2016 15" MacBook Pro. This is a brand new chip. So we only have preliminary data, and Apple's claim that it's twice as fast, to go on. When these ship, then we'll have some real benchmarks.

What the 15" MacBook Pro is really designed to do with it's GPU, is drive really big really high resolution displays effortlessly while churning through intense applications like Final Cut Pro or Maya. A pair of 5k displays PLUS the high resolution built-in display running through heavy editing/rendering software is where all of it's horsepower is going to be right at home. Gaming is not going to be it's strong suit compared to gaming GPU equipped laptops in the price range, including gaming ultrabooks.

For the record, the 1.85 TeraFlops claimed in the Radeon 460 Pro is essentially identical to the performance of the GPU in the PlayStation 4. That does not mean it'll game as well as a PlayStation 4 (which plays games at 1080p and 30-60fps at the equivalent of mid-high settings on a PC). But it does, essentially, have nearly as much raw computing power in it's GPU. This chip is no slouch.

 

[therealseebs]

Huh, I just assumed that a "Radeon 460" would be at least pretty similar to another "Radeon 460". I hadn't actually noticed that Pro/RX thing.

Which means that the laptop will probably be somewhat weaker than I'd hoped, but oh well.

I just wish they made a laptop with high-end hardware. Yes, I know, it would have to be slightly larger. I would be happy with having the option of buying that slightly larger laptop that would do what I want better.

 

[el-John-o]

Huh, I just assumed that a "Radeon 460" would be at least pretty similar to another "Radeon 460". I hadn't actually noticed that Pro/RX thing.

Which means that the laptop will probably be somewhat weaker than I'd hoped, but oh well.

I just wish they made a laptop with high-end hardware. Yes, I know, it would have to be slightly larger. I would be happy with having the option of buying that slightly larger laptop that would do what I want better.

Weaker than an RX460 for videogames (again, you're looking at the wrong laptop if that's your primary purpose. It'll still do it though), stronger than the RX460 in stuff like Photoshop, FCPX, Maya, etc. And the latter is the target audience for Apple, so it makes sense.

And I'm with you. I think they need to bring back the 17" model. It can be a big thicker, give it DDR4 RAM (instead of LPDDR3) so it's not limited to 16GB due to Intels limits on LPDDR3. 64GB of RAM, maybe even a mobile Xeon, a nice fast GPU. Would really round out the line. Probably only a 4-5 hour battery life; but a lot of performance. It would fit that "one desk to the next" niche quite well.

 

[leman]

The 2016 MacBook Pro 15" is NOT coming with the RX series of GPU's from AMD. So it is NOT the RX460 on the top tier one, for example. It's the Radeon Pro. This is really confusing because of AMD's arbitrary and meaningless number system. But the Radeon 460 Pro is not the same as the RX460. The RX460 is a mid-ranged chip edged towards gaming; and the 460 Pro is a 'content creation' chip designed to be best for things like 4k video editing and 3D creating. Which makes the most sense in a MacBook Pro, by the way.

Well, they are basically the same chip. The 460RX is Polaris 11 with 2 out of 16 cores disabled. The Pro 460 is a fully enabled Polaris 11 (full 16 cores), but clocked lower than the 460RX. The performance should be somewhere in the ballpark of 80-85% of the 460RX (this applies to both gaming and professional applications). But the mobile variant is over twice as energy efficient because of selected and thinned chips.

 

[jav6454]

http://radeon.com/en-us/radeon-pro-graphics-debut-in-new-macbook-pro/

This is the actual link. Radeon Pro is AMD brand for professional GPUs.
Here is example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10140/amd-announces-radeon-pro-duo
Here is example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10518/amd-announces-radeon-pro-ssg-fiji-with-m2-ssds-onboard
Here is example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10521...wx-4100-wx-5100-wx-7100-bring-polaris-to-pros

Just because you are not informed, you are spreading misinformation over forums.

You quoted the Duos which arguably have several inefficiencies. Now look at the line up. The Pro you quoted start at 1024 Stream procesors. Good if you look for a budget. Now look at what Apple starts you at, 640 Stream procesors and up from there but at a penny, quite the penny.

Now go ahead an look at Shaders and Texture Units, we don't know them on the Mobile ones, but as always with chip makers we know these are usually less. Much less than their desktop brothers. Not a big jump there considering the market.

Now go into aruably the one of the features Radeon Pros are being pushed for, the SSG. That is not even present in this line-up. Albeit its something that is still in its infancy I fail to see why Apple didn't capaitalize on this, oh wait! Yes, its not a Pro product.

You can argue its a "Pro" GPU, but the amount of ROPs, Stream, Shaders, Texture units is most likely quite small which diminish its Pro effectiveness. True the updated Polaris 11 core might make it up, but not by much considering its extremely limited 35W TDP. This TDP means serious throttling if you ever start doing something graphics intensive. Something that "Pros" find annoying and frustrating to say the least. Specially more so if you can't properly eGPU (which many suggest here to make up for the lost performance and even though doesn't play nice with Macs).

For these reasons I label the new Macs simply a MacBook, and not a Pro. Agree to disagree, but in all honesty I can't even fathom the expense of these generation compared to benefits, not when the consumer side of GPUs can offer a bit more at a better $/performance ratio. Pro products need to be versatile and offer the same advantages and more that their consumer counterpart offers. These Macs barely make an excuse.

 

[Jker]

Okay turns out League doesn't run as well as I first thought.

FPS dropping to 10-30 in high intensity situations.

More importantly however, the screen is seeing the occasional flickering of a black screen specifically only when I play league? It happens very infrequently but randomly every half a second it'll flicker into a black screen which is odd.

Anyone know why or have solutions? Might just be a bad model.

 

[tongefactor40]

The Radeon Pro GPU is similar to AMD's former FireGL line. It's designed for applications like Maya, Final Cut Pro and Photoshop. It will work for gaming at moderate settings; but it's tweaked to do more "work" than "play" (cue "I'm a Mac" commercials and "Hey PC, doing some work? I'm gonna go have fun", whoops!)

First off, do you need a laptop for gaming? Mobile components, CPU's and GPU's especially, have to confine themselves to certain heat and power requirements, to do so means cutting performance. Even if the numbers are identical, they aren't identical. For example, a "GTX 970 with 2GB of VRAM" you'll see on the label of a Windows Gaming laptop is far slower than a "GTX 970 with 2GB of VRAM" desktop card in a desktop PC. It's all just marketing. Gaming laptops are both more expensive AND slower than their desktop counterparts. Now, some people need a laptop; I get it! So if a Laptop is what you must do, then go for it!

If a laptop is what you must do; then a Windows gaming laptop is a far better value. To be honest, if you want a MacBook Pro; then you should have a reason to want a MacBook Pro. You need portability and want certain Mac Apps to work as well as possible (I ordered the 15" for Final Cut Pro, for example). Or maybe you just love the industrial design, ease of use and reliability; and that's worth the money for you. But if you're buying a laptop to play games on, a MacBook Pro simply is not the right tool for the job. A Ferrari and an 18-wheeler with trailer cost about the same amount of money. If you're hoping to win your next track day, the 18-wheeler isn't gonna do it. If you're hoping to branch out as an over-the-road trucker; then the Ferrari isn't going to get you very far. You need the right tool for the job.

Depending on your needs; one option might be a 12" MacBook or a 13" non-touchbar MacBook Pro, AND a Gaming Desktop; for about the price of a 15" MacBook Pro. You've got a Mac for Mac stuff that you might want to do; and a gaming PC for gaming.

NOW; if you NEED a Mac for some specific reason. For example, Final Cut Pro, or developing for iOS, or whatever. And you're buying a 15" MBP for that reason? Then it makes sense to get the 460 GPU; and then you can do some light duty low-to-mid-settings 1080p gaming in your spare time.
[doublepost=1478007115][/doublepost]

Better than your HD4000 setup. Not significantly better, but better nevertheless. When it comes to me and my laptop, I want a Mac. I also like to play games. I game on a Windows PC. But I didn't mind paying more for the faster GPU both for the "Mac Stuff" I want to do; but also to be able to play games occasionally, like you, perhaps when I'm traveling. It's all about expectations. The fact that my Mac is powerful enough to play most games at reasonable framerates at reasonable resolutions is icing on the cake. However, I'd be sorely disappointed if I bought it expecting to get a "gaming laptop".

For the record, if you can spring it, the 15" Model (Quad-Core CPU and Dedicated GPU) is significantly more powerful, and will be much better for those occasional games. IF you can stomach the pretty substantial price.

Probably the best post in this thread. I had a 2015 macbook Pro and sold it to get a sky lake i7/GTM 970m Windows laptop rig. I am definitely a casual gamer and haven't actually fired up steam to play a game for 3 months. The laptop is great, super slim, light and handles my day-to-day work loads quite well... but, it isn't a Mac. I miss the screen, keyboard, look, and most of all macOS. So before the apple event i had my heart set on a new macbook pro, but seeing such an average GPU was such a letdown - after reading the leaks I was convinced we would get a nice solid upgrade from that previous r9 m370x, that doesn't seem to have happened though. What sucks is that the lack of ports/port types, keyboard, gimmicky touch bar, etc. don't even bother me.

Only option at this point is egpu + a base model 13" from my end. Hopefully i can get the best of both worlds as long as I am close enough to my desk.

 

[el-John-o]

Just keep in mind there's quite a jump in CPU performance with the 15" models as well.

eGPU might be a great solution for gaming. Desktop GPU's are faster and cheaper. Though the cost savings is eclipsed several times over by the cost of eGPU enclosures.

 

[leman]

You quoted the Duos which arguably have several inefficiencies. Now look at the line up. The Pro you quoted start at 1024 Stream procesors. Good if you look for a budget. Now look at what Apple starts you at, 640 Stream procesors and up from there but at a penny, quite the penny.

The 460 Pro is basically identical to the WX 4100 in the Anandtech article. Again, you are comparing desktop cards to a laptop.

after reading the leaks I was convinced we would get a nice solid upgrade from that previous r9 m370x, that doesn't seem to have happened though

Why do you think its not a solid upgrade? The Pro 460 is around twice as fast.

 

[AvengerNX08]

Okay turns out League doesn't run as well as I first thought.

FPS dropping to 10-30 in high intensity situations.

More importantly however, the screen is seeing the occasional flickering of a black screen specifically only when I play league? It happens very infrequently but randomly every half a second it'll flicker into a black screen which is odd.

Anyone know why or have solutions? Might just be a bad model.

Doesn't run as well you thought on what system?

 

[fokmik]

i wonder if there will be a difference between amd 450 and 460 in terms of battery life and heat

 

[Samuelsan2001]

It matches an nvidia 1050

http://www.mobilenapps.com/articles/20654/20161025/amd-rx-460-vs-nvidia-gtx-1050-review.htm

 

[MacBH928]

I understand that macbooks are not gaming machines, but for $2000 you expect to at least run games from 2 years ago at 1080p but no...

I am not a technical guy but still amazes me how you can build games on the machine on 3D applications but the same machine that built the game can not run it...