OP stated
I emphasized this. This means beyond "playable" low settings. Go ahead and stick Crysis in your 2015 rMBP. I'd love to see it squirm when you put medium (which is the playable setting).
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
OP stated
I emphasized this. This means beyond "playable" low settings. Go ahead and stick Crysis in your 2015 rMBP. I'd love to see it squirm when you put medium (which is the playable setting).
Even 30 FPS would be fairly decent on a MBP since it isn't a gaming laptop.
Substract from RX 460 15-20% and you get the FPS you will see on Radeon Pro 460.
You are being overly optimistic, did you forget the the time and temperature apsect of this 35W TDP GPU? At 35W TDP, you are not going to hold that 15-20% perhaps even more.
When c
I really don't understand this argument about measuring a laptops battery while the CPU/GPU is under heavy load... all laptops have **** battery life when under these conditions, including the MacBook. If I ever had to render a 3D scene on my MacBook, it was always plugged in because otherwise the battery would disintegrate. Now measuring light use (browsing, listening to music, etc.) is another thing alltogether... MacBook excels in that area while a windows-based laptop falls behind (not horribly though).
The Radeon Pro has 15% more cores, than RX 460, and 30% lower core clock.
Add another 5% for Memory bandwidth and you get to what I expect it will behave.
Secondly. I do not see throttling on my Mid 2012 MBP. Always you have to ramp up the fans to get the temperature to suitable level, however, and this will be the case of this MBP.
Substract from RX 460 15-20% and you get the FPS you will see on Radeon Pro 460.
That's just a straight up guess. We have no idea how the Radeon 460 Pro is going to compare to it's desktop big brother.
Apple claims the GPU on the new MacBook Pro is twice as fast as the one before. If that's true, and folks are getting 30fps @ 1080p now, then we should see even better performance, including the ability to up the graphics settings while maintaining that 1080p@30.
I suppose, but to even get to a "somewhat average" level you have to spend a ton more to get from a 450 to 460... that is what pisses me off the most.
You are forgetting something important. Last revision had extra space, more air flow than this more passively cooled generation [More height for the fan and air] You will feel the heat, rather the GPU will feel it and throttle. Any GPU hitting 95*C will auto throttle, just like Intel's core that shut down to keep temps down.
Also, memory bandwidth does not compensate a slow core.
Its overclocked by 30 MHz. The difference between stock and OC'ed version is 1-2 FPS. Secondly biggest difference in performance in new games gives 4GB of VRAM vs 2 GB.
If you say so. But its easy to estimate how GCN architecture will perform in gaming scenarios.
It's a 5% price increase on the base model 15", and only a 3% price increase if you're choosing the 'second' model with the faster CPU.
If you're spending upwards of $2500 on a laptop, I'm not so sure if $100 really can be called "a ton more".
"Overclocked" versions are frequently just a gimmick. Once in a while they can surprise folks but usually in a benchmark environment, as you say, it's the difference of 1, maybe 2 FPS. Not noticeable enough and perhaps even inside the margin of error. It's really just a way to convince customers to buy their version of the GPU over the others. For GPU manufacturers it's a bit tough; because you aren't selling a different GPU than anyone else. A GTX 1080 is a GTX 1080. So you've got to come up with SOMETHING to convince people to buy your brand over another. (Overclocking, solid state caps, better cooling... something).
So in your mind how much it will be slower?
There is a very reason why Apple locked it at 907 MHz. To not exceed the thermal envelope and not throttle, and not draw too much power.
I have been known to travel with gaming laptops, and honestly, I don't think the "thin and light" thing matters. Battery life is more of a concern.
Its a heatpipe that goes directly to a cooler. What matters here is the heat pipe conductivity and cooler performance, not the 'space'. Look at the Apple-provided images of that laptop. We have no idea how it performs (the non-touchbar 13" seems to have old cooling system still).
I think everyone can argue all day about Watts versus Performance, but the problem is that this argument SHOULD be for a MacBook Air conversation, not a MacBook Pro conversation. Where AIR means as light as possible, no matter how NON professional it is.. This is supposed to be a PRO Machine, not a LIGHT AS POSSIBLE MACHINE.
A tech editor called the new MacBook Pro the best most expensive, PRO MacBook Air, he said it should never be called a MacBook Pro. Its not on par with ANY pro level on the market today. Who cares if it can GAME, the problem is that it can't PRO.
A tech editor called the new MacBook Pro the best most expensive, PRO MacBook Air, he said it should never be called a MacBook Pro. Its not on par with ANY pro level on the market today. Who cares if it can GAME, the problem is that it can't PRO.
Yes, its a popular argument, but frankly, it doesn't make any sense because it is only based on your idea of what 'pro laptop' means. The fact is that it uses professional-branded GPU and the fact its much faster than any GPU ever used in any MacBook Pro. Whether this performance is enough to do what you intend to do with a laptop, thats your decision. If you need a beefier GPU and are prepared to sacrifice your mobility for it, that is absolutely your choice.
Because that reviewer was reviewing the low-tier version of the 13" model, which Apple explicitly said is there to replace the MacBook Air. So really, whats your problem again?
When asked to provide an example of a Pro-level laptop, people on these forums quote 3+ kg models that feature Quadro M2000M/M1000M GPUs. If those midrage-end GPUs are 'pro' enough, so is the new MBP 15", which has a faster Pro 460.
Edit: sorry, I meant the Quadro M*000M series.
Last edited:
K2000M is 4 year old GPU, with KEPLER GK107 chip. The same that was in GT650M/750M. What this means is that Radeon Pro 450 is faster than that chip, in every shape, way and form.
Even With M2000M the Radeon Pro 450(this is not a typo) will be on par. Other GPUs will be faster than that.
Shouldn't every new MacBook Pro have the fastest GPU than a previous release?
GPU's get faster every cycle, Am I missing something?
As for Mobility, thats fine, just don't call it PRO call it the Apple MacBook Mobile.
My Problem is the Radeon Pro 460, I guess could be considered Pro, in a really low level interpretation of Pro. But the base model is the Radeon Pro 450, which is not that pro.
No, I don't see that, most people are referencing the Razer Blades which have GeForce GTX 970M with 6GB GDDR5 VRAM. Which is 4.25lbs
I think everyone agrees that the MacBook Pro Specs are a STRECH to be called pro. Everyone seems to agree on that in these forums.
ADOBE CLOUD for one, is a product that is horrible with OpenCL, Premiere and After Effects are both Pro Apps, that will be dismal in the new MacBook Pro. Final Cut Pro X is not a Professional app.