Doesn't run as well you thought on what system?
Not sure what you're asking
But yeah, this screen flickering only happens during league or watching videos, so something to do with graphics I guess?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New MacBook Pro and Gaming?
- Thread starter thomas1984
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure what you're asking
But yeah, this screen flickering only happens during league or watching videos, so something to do with graphics I guess?
What you are doing is trying to validate your point of view, which is fair enough.
However that is only your opinion, not a fact. Whether you like it or not, Radeon Pro 450/455/460 are Professional GPUs, and as that they have to be considered. If you do not like this - do not buy MacBook Pro.
IS it really not able to run 2 year old games at 1080p? Or is this only your clueless opinion?
Heroes of the Storm - 120 FPS in 1080p for RX460.
Overwatch - Ultra settings - 70 FPS in 1080p for the same GPU.
Substract from the scores 15% and you get Radeon Pro 460 performance.
Not quite. The RX460 is a desktop card. The 2016 MacBook Pro 15" is the first notebook with the Radeon Pro 460. So there are no benchmarks out there for that card.
As another poster pointed out; the 460 Pro is essentially a very efficient mobile variant of the 460 Pro. The marketing materials suggest it's tweaked for 3D Rendering, video editing, etc; similar to their FireGL line of years before. We'll know more when these are in our hands and can be benchmarked.
So searching for "RX460" benchmarks is useless for two reasons. 1) The MacBook Pro doesn't have an RX460, is has a Radeon Pro 460. 2) The RX460 is a desktop chip without a mobile version.
Personally, I think it's confusing to consumers that companies use the same model names for their mobile chips as their desktop chips. But then, most GPU's have absolutely arbitrary meaningless names anyway. Random letters and numbers. (Displays are even worse. "U28PDQ15x- That's brand recognition!"). Desktop chips have access to a lot more power and produce a lot more heat. It's one reason gaming laptops aren't the great value people think they are. A desktop is faster and for less money. If you need a laptop, sure, it's useful there. But for straight up gaming a homebuilt gaming PC is a much better value. An i7 equipped desktop with a GTX 1080 is way faster than an "i7 with GTX 1080" laptop. Both CPU and GPU are going to mobile-ified versions.
The whole 15% is still a guess at this point too. We won't know until we are actually running these things. Myself? I'm anxious to get mine with the 460 and see how it runs some games. But my main gaming machine is a desktop PC. And with two GPU's each faster than an RX460 (a DESKTOP RX460) together it struggles to do 4k in some games at 60fps. It takes a lot of horsepower!
I agree Radeon Pro 450, 455, and 460 are very efficient and not the same as RX Polaris cards. They're less powerful variants. No matter how well Apple and supported apps are optimized for these GPUs, they are weak relative to the current crop.
This is a screencap of Info.plist in AMD9500Controller.kext (macOS 10.12.1). The first 3 PCI IDs are Polaris 11. The last 2 PCI IDs are Polaris 10. http://developer.amd.com/resources/ati-catalyst-pc-vendor-id-1002-li/
This is a screencap of Info.plist in AMD9500Controller.kext (macOS 10.12.1). The first 3 PCI IDs are Polaris 11. The last 2 PCI IDs are Polaris 10. http://developer.amd.com/resources/ati-catalyst-pc-vendor-id-1002-li/
I think we will need to wait and see what the new top end 15" model is like with games as the GPU seems to be a bit unknown.
I would love to see the top end NMBP model with the top net GPU option pitted against the new Razer Blade with its new 1060 GPU. Because the Blade is certainly a lot cheaper!
I would love to see the top end NMBP model with the top net GPU option pitted against the new Razer Blade with its new 1060 GPU. Because the Blade is certainly a lot cheaper!
Well you already know, Polaris 11 is not a gaming platform. It's not marketed for such and not geared towards that. It'll work, but you'll obtain better results from the consumer side GPUs.
[doublepost=1478268823][/doublepost]
Which is why I am not buying this generation. Nor can I even recommend them or say they are the latest and greatest.
They are not. The desktop counterpart has a much higher 135W+ TDP vs a 35W TDP [a 100W+ TDP difference]. You are basically hammering performance due to thermal constraints. In all likelyness, the 460 is more akin to a WX 2100 variant (if such card ever exists).
May I know, when you will stop spreading misinformation?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10521...wx-4100-wx-5100-wx-7100-bring-polaris-to-pros
WX4100 is the same chip as Radeon Pro 460. It will not have the same TDP - more likely 75W.
The anandtech article you just posted doesn't even have a TDP. Have you ever seen a double wide PCI Express card at 75W TDP? Have you?
Here is the chart for those looking. Please bear that even the writer alludes it may be 75W, but they still do not know.
Because the GPU in question DOES NOT HAVE 6 pin connector! It powers itself ONLY from PCIe power, therefore maximum power it can draw is 75W. Therefore it has 75W maximum TDP.
Well, the WX4100 does actually match the Radeon Pro 460 on the specs, so it is not at all impossible that the 460 is just a waaay down-clocked version. Note that they match each other on Polaris 11 and 16 CU with 1024 SP. The Memory Bus Width of 128-bit and the 4 GB Vram is the same as well.
Guys, how can you not understand simple facts. There are only TWO GPU designs from AMD on 14 nm FinFET process. Polaris 10 and Polaris 11.
Polaris 10: Radeon RX 470D, 470 and 480. Radeon Pro WX5100, Radeon Pro WX7100. Radeon E9550. 1792 GCN core design, 2048 GCN core design, 2304 GCN core design. All of the designs differ only by TDP, core clocks, and memory clocks, and memory configurations.
Polaris 11: Radeon RX 460. Radeon Pro 450, Radeon Pro 455, Radeon Pro 460. Radeon E9260. 1024 GCN core design, 896 GCN core design, 768 GCN core design, and 640 GCN core design. All of the design differ by core and memory clocks, power consumption, and memory configurations.
All of Radeon Pro GPUs from MacBook Pro are Polaris 11 based.
Polaris 10: Radeon RX 470D, 470 and 480. Radeon Pro WX5100, Radeon Pro WX7100. Radeon E9550. 1792 GCN core design, 2048 GCN core design, 2304 GCN core design. All of the designs differ only by TDP, core clocks, and memory clocks, and memory configurations.
Polaris 11: Radeon RX 460. Radeon Pro 450, Radeon Pro 455, Radeon Pro 460. Radeon E9260. 1024 GCN core design, 896 GCN core design, 768 GCN core design, and 640 GCN core design. All of the design differ by core and memory clocks, power consumption, and memory configurations.
All of Radeon Pro GPUs from MacBook Pro are Polaris 11 based.
The above poster never said anything about Polaris 10/11, he mentioned evebn further gimped cores. Example, lower clock rates.
Uhm, I agreed with you that the WX4100 does in fact look to be using the same chip spin as the Radeon Pro 460? But somewhat down-clocked.... (over 2.00 TFLOP vs 1.86)
Anyway, I think the primarily reason why Apple could get this GPU to work within the 35 watt frame is that they have down-clocked the memory speed significantly more than the GPU core.
Both WX4100 and Pro 460 are full Polaris 11 dies with 16 cores. The clocks are also similar (I estimate the Pro 460 to be clocked around 900Mhz or so). If you are going to argue that its not the same chip, agains all the evidence, then you'd have to provide a compelling argument.
The desktop card most likely has higher TDP but that can be achieved through chip binning.
[doublepost=1478272001][/doublepost]
They quote 80GB/s bandwidth, which means that the memory is GDDR5@5Ghz, which is on par with other laptop solutions. The reason for such low TDP is most likely aggressive chip binning, paired with this thinning technique AMD is quoting (although I have no idea how it would effect power consumption).
True, I only question whether they will be able to meet demand on the 460 with aggressive chip binning, but it could be that most of the chips are in the neighborhood to pull this through. Otherwise I would have expected the 460 upgrade to be much more expensive that it is. Anyway, GDDR5@5Ghz should save some watt off too, so I'm not really in disagreement here.
Bingo, we have NO IDEA folks. Apple says it's twice as fast in games as the previous model; but we don't actually know how well it'll perform until folks get them and benchmark them.
If you want the new MacBook Pro for gaming as a primary function; then you need to do two things:
1) WAIT for the benchmarks to come out so you can see how the brand new Radeon Pro 460 actually performs in real-world games.
And then
2) Still don't buy a MacBook Pro, buy a gaming PC. Because seriously folks. As a guy who is such an Apple fanboy he puts his boxes that his Apple stuff came in on display in his house; you're buying the wrong computer for the job...
Yes. 128 GB Memory Bandwidth on RX 460 consumes 17W of power under load. They could save at best 5-6W of power that way.True, I only question whether they will be able to meet demand on the 460 with aggressive chip binning, but it could be that most of the chips are in the neighborhood to pull this through. Otherwise I would have expected the 460 upgrade to be much more expensive that it is. Anyway, GDDR5@5Ghz should save some watt off too, so I'm not really in disagreement here.
That said, it doesn't mean gaming can't be a nice secondary function. I sometimes boot into windows and fire up a PC game, or play something like Civ IV once in a while on a plane or something. That's where the MBP actually excels over a gaming laptop. It's actually thin and light enough to actually carry into an environment like that; and it's use of super efficient GPU's means a bit of a performance hit; but I can actually sit and play a game for the entire 3 hour airplane ride... (Which is about the only time I play a game for 3 hours straight).
I think I stated this earlier, the current GPUs will likely play games from 8 years ago fine. You want Fallout 4? Lol no! Wait, I also stated, these GPUs can't even run Crysis, and that's pushing a 8 year game... hmmm. Yup, no good for gaming!
True, but I think comparisons to other laptops in terms of gaming is fair. Especially when they can be just as light and portable as the MacBook with better GPUs.
Apple treats gaming as a secondary feature in the hardware the provide, but certainly not in the way the machine is promoted. Go to their page and "gaming" is listed right there next to "video editing".
Um... what?
First off, there's no way to know what these GPU's can and cannot do because they aren't even out yet. People who are posting benchmarks or claiming to know the performance are seriously mistaken and showing off benchmarks for OTHER GPU's and "guessing". The 2016 MacBook Pro is the first machine ever to be equipped with the Radeon 460 Pro.
Secondly, last years GPU's could play Crysis (AND Fallout 4), and this years is reportedly twice as fast?
The 2015 MacBook Pro 15" with the dedicated GPU can play all of those games and more. Not at max settings of course, but absolutely playable. The 13" can't, but we aren't TALKING about the 13" and it's integrated GPU.
What... where are you getting this information? Literally nothing you said was true...
"Just as portable" is the part I'm debating. Just as light and thin? Absolutely! Battery life? That's another issue entirely. They'll claim as much, but if you look at reviewers, the real world performance isn't there. Some that claim 10 hours of battery life can't quite make it all the way to the 90 minute mark while gaming. Those faster GPU's use a TON of energy when they are in use.
The more efficient chips allow the tasks you want to do, whether it be gaming or video editing; be accomplished even when you aren't near an outlet; even if you won't be able to max out the settings.