New Macbook Pro with vega graphics coming soon

[lJoSquaredl]

Doesn't look like you can. Tech specs only list the 560X as an upgrade option for the base 2.2 model. Clicking on "select" for the base model shows only the 560X upgrade option as well. Clicking on "select" for the upper tier model lists "Graphics - New options coming late November" and both Pro Vega options listed below that.

Well cross my fingers it doesn't overheat then I guess. Still for how much Apple likes to put emphasis on quiet machines you'd think they'd give the 2.2 model a Vega option so I can have a beast machine that still stays as quiet and cool as possible.

 

[FairlyKors]

I'm a bit disappointed as well that it looks like I bought mine too early, but the good news is Apple is providing incremental updates as the technology becomes available. The alternative is waiting 350-400+ days for an update, while they still sell woefully out of date hardware, and that is not a much better option.

You’d have a case if PC laptops hadn’t had the much faster GTX 1050, 1060, 1070 and 1080 options available for a couple years already.

The GTX 1060 is incredibly fast (in laptop world) and can now be found in PCs starting around the $1K mark. If it wasn’t for Nvidia’s mobile GPUs, the price to specs ratio etween PC’s and MacBooks wouldn’t appear nearly as lopsided as they do right now.

Like others have mentioned, the 2.3GHz MBP with an external Blackmagic eGPU (or even a GTX 1080ti eGPU, if you want to get crazy) looks like the best value for a high-end (semi) portable MBP solution.

The AMD “discrete” GPU’s that have been in all the recent MBP models fall so short of Nvidia’s mobile GTX series that they feel like a bit of a slap in the face, especially on a $3K - $4K “Pro” laptop. Actually paying to upgrade a 555X to the 560X... that feels like moving from last place in a race to second to last place.

I’m not trying to knock the MBP or promote PC’s. Specs are just that, specs— and PC makers seem heII bent on driving that point home with systems that rarely work well as a whole.

 

[lJoSquaredl]

You’d have a case if PC laptops hadn’t had the much faster GTX 1050, 1060, 1070 and 1080 options available for a couple years already.

The GTX 1060 is incredibly fast (in laptop world) and can now be found in PCs starting around the $1K mark. If it wasn’t for Nvidia’s mobile GPUs, the price to specs ratio etween PC’s and MacBooks wouldn’t appear nearly as lopsided as they do right now.

Like others have mentioned, the 2.3GHz MBP with an external Blackmagic eGPU (or even a GTX 1080ti eGPU, if you want to get crazy) looks like the best value for a high-end (semi) portable MBP solution.

The AMD “discrete” GPU’s that have been in all the recent MBP models fall so short of Nvidia’s mobile GTX series that they feel like a bit of a slap in the face, especially on a $3K - $4K “Pro” laptop. Actually paying to upgrade a 555X to the 560X... that feels like moving from last place in a race to second to last place.

I’m not trying to knock the MBP or promote PC’s. Specs are just that, specs— and PC makers seem heII bent on driving that point home with systems that rarely work well as a whole.

Tho if you use FCPX with AMD it actually beats PC with Nvidia in situations. Even tho to a PC or Adobe guy the AMD cards may seem slow, if you use it with Apple software it's actually just as fast or faster at times. This is the inherent problem, either people not using the full Apple experience or using less optimized programs on Apple. Here's an example at 4:54

 

[wiregen]

I'm glad I was able to return my Macbook Pro 2018 2.6/32gb/512gb today since it was the last day.
I'll be going back to my trusty 2014 Macbook Pro 15 Retina in the time being while we see the costs, performance and thermals on the vega line.

 

[Eidorian]

AMD put up a video today as well.

"These new AMD Radeon™ Vega Mobile graphics processors are available as configuration options on the 15-inch Apple MacBook Pro starting late November."

 

[akis-k]

Just a silly guess perhaps, but i believe that with the new graphics we might see better thermals inside mbp's. The reason might be the small footprint thanks to HBM2 memory in these new Vega chips, meaning more room for better cooling solutions. Just a guess though... Hopefully...

 

[_Kiki_]

Tho if you use FCPX with AMD it actually beats PC with Nvidia in situations. Even tho to a PC or Adobe guy the AMD cards may seem slow, if you use it with Apple software it's actually just as fast or faster at times. This is the inherent problem, either people not using the full Apple experience or using less optimized programs on Apple. Here's an example at 4:54

that's doesn't conclude the AMD is better than NVIDIA

 

[lJoSquaredl]

that's doesn't conclude the AMD is better than NVIDIA

That's not what I said, I said AMDs can yield better results than Nvidia in the same test if you use Apple software with them.

 

[BananaX]

According to apple: 'the result is significantly faster graphics performance — up to 60 per cent faster than the Radeon Pro 560X — for tackling demanding video, 3D, rendering and compute workloads.'

Looking forward to the real world tests.

 

[_Kiki_]

That's not what I said, I said AMDs can yield better results than Nvidia in the same test if you use Apple software with them.

because optimisation, probably you can find other video editing software for PC optimised for NVIDIA which will crush MacBook Pro with Final Cut Pro

 

[204353]

Just a silly guess perhaps, but i believe that with the new graphics we might see better thermals inside mbp's. The reason might be the small footprint thanks to HBM2 memory in these new Vega chips, meaning more room for better cooling solutions. Just a guess though... Hopefully...

The heatsink will need to make direct contact with the GPU and HBM2 dies, as opposed to the off-die GDDR5 of the 560X, so there'll be more heat for the cooling system to exhaust. The Vega chips will no doubt be more power-hungry and therefore hotter as well. It seems very unlikely that they've made a significantly different cooling system for this CTO options, since that would raise the component cost a lot for a small volume of shipments.

Although I'm a little annoyed that these options weren't available at launch, I already stretched my budget to get mine and the 560X is still pretty good.

Also, the "up to 60% faster" claim is probably only in very specific situations as always. The Vega 20 has only 4 more compute units (256 cores) than the 560X. Although the faster HBM2 may make a bigger difference, I'd expect only about 25% faster performance in most loads.

And for what price? Looking at the other CTO upgrade options, I'm expecting these Vega GPUs to add a lot to the final total.

 

[lJoSquaredl]

because optimisation, probably you can find other video editing software for PC optimised for NVIDIA which will crush MacBook Pro with Final Cut Pro

Adobe is supposed to be optimized for Nvidia is it not? Davinci seems to do good with both, not sure about Avid. My point was just that people trash AMD but if you use AMD with Apple's software (which you should be doing to get the most out of your experience) they're not bad compared to people's glorious Nvidia GPUs. And now with Vega coming to MBPs people will hopefully care about this debate even less.

 

[_Kiki_]

Adobe is supposed to be optimized for Nvidia is it not? Davinci seems to do good with both, not sure about Avid. My point was just that people trash AMD but if you use AMD with Apple's software (which you should be doing to get the most out of your experience) they're not bad compared to people's glorious Nvidia GPUs. And now with Vega coming to MBPs people will hopefully care about this debate even less.

I doubt the Adobe Premiere is currently best software this type on Windows, probably in most scenarios you can always use RAW GPU power in OpenCL and compare specs to the price, so PC desktop probably will win in all scenarios, and you exchange/replace GPU/CPU every time if you need more power, I still have AMD desktop card on my shelf for any eventual scenario, but for laptop there aren't to many choices with powerful AMD card, there is some ASUS with powerful RX580 (comparable with GTX 1060), but that's all

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Adobe is supposed to be optimized for Nvidia is it not? Davinci seems to do good with both, not sure about Avid. My point was just that people trash AMD but if you use AMD with Apple's software (which you should be doing to get the most out of your experience) they're not bad compared to people's glorious Nvidia GPUs. And now with Vega coming to MBPs people will hopefully care about this debate even less.

Adobe doesn’t optimise for any GPU architecture. They use their own acceleration called Mercury based on CL and GL.

 

[deconstruct60]

I'd be excited if it was the "Vega 20" as in the stuff that leaked in the summer, 7nm. But on AMD page it is listed as 14nm so looks like another rehash of Polaris. I wouldn't expect earth shattering performance/watt gains.

It isn't Polaris. It is a very substantially chopped down Vega. The desktop "Vega 10 architecture" options Vega 64 and Vega 56 refer to 64 and 56 Compute Units ( CUs). These 20 and 16 just have a lot less compute units ( about a 68% reduction in compute resources). it also appears to have only one HBM stack ( instead of two, so the bandwidth is narrower too, but also less 'mouths' to feed. ).

There are likely corner cases where this is much better than the previous Polaris based options because the computations have a better fit on Vega, but generally this may be more of better fit to the thermal constraints than a huge broad spectrum leap forward.

 

[Falhófnir]

Will this addition of Vega graphics replace the current 2018 models at same price or available as an upgrade at a higher cost?

What I've read makes it sound like they will be BTO options, presumably at significant extra cost

 

[zmon]

Most likely the same Kaby Lake-G (w/ Vega) chips that are currently available, and what we assumed Apple may have offered when the 18 models would be released (https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/136847/Kaby-Lake-G).

It's too bad none of them would work in the 13 unless you want severe throttling. There's a reason there's very few 13 inch models in the MBP's category that have anything besides the regular iGPU nowadays. (MX150's are scarce, and just about nobody is using the chips with Iris GPUs besides Apple)

 

[deconstruct60]

What I've read makes it sound like they will be BTO options, presumably at significant extra cost

Don't have to just read.... they are already listed in the online store ( The BTO options on the top end MBP 15" are actually in the "November' stage at this point. No way to order the older options. I'm sure some pre-configed models are floating out there in some other stores. )

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/15-inch-space-gray-2.6ghz-6-core-512gb#
[doublepost=1540935182][/doublepost]

Most likely the same Kaby Lake-G (w/ Vega) chips that are currently available, and what we assumed Apple may have offered when the 18 models would be released (https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/136847/Kaby-Lake-G).

It's too bad none of them would work in the 13 unless you want severe throttling.

Throttling isn't the primary issue in the MBP 13". The Kaby-Lake-G won't fit period. There is no room on the logic board for them. That Intel package is larger the package the MBP 13" were designed for and the MBP 13" logic board is basically completely full.

Vega 16/20 will work in the MBP 15" because the "floor plan" for the GPU+VRAM is actually smaller than the Polaris solution they were designed for.

 

[LK LAW]

I'm 99% sure that means vega is on 7nm then, just no way they'd manage to fit vega in the MBp or they would've done it sooner...

 

[Thysanoptera]

It isn't Polaris. It is a very substantially chopped down Vega. The desktop "Vega 10 architecture" options Vega 64 and Vega 56 refer to 64 and 56 Compute Units ( CUs). These 20 and 16 just have a lot less compute units ( about a 68% reduction in compute resources). it also appears to have only one HBM stack ( instead of two, so the bandwidth is narrower too, but also less 'mouths' to feed. ).

Vega is another rehash of polaris, just because AMD calls it Vega this time around doesn't change that fact that performance of AMD cards scales linearly from 480 all the way to Vega 64 depending on clock and number of compute units, you can multiply the CUs by clock and come up with benchmark numbers for each revision. Unfortunately so does the power required to run it. To get 60% improvement over rx560x while using 20 CUs they would need to run it at 30% higher clocks which would most likely ignite a thermonuclear reaction inside MBP, create a sun that would eventually collapse into black hole leading to a wormhole to alternate universe from which Apple apparently gets their marketing staff.

 

[c0ppo]

To get 60% improvement over rx560x while using 20 CUs they would need to run it at 30% higher clocks which would most likely ignite a thermonuclear reaction inside MBP, create a sun that would eventually collapse into black hole leading to a wormhole to alternate universe from which Apple apparently gets their marketing staff.

It's almost 1am where I'm at. I'm just surfing around before heading to sleep (I know, unhealthy...), and I read this part. Brilliant. Thank you for making me laugh, and ##### you for making it even harder to sleep now

 

[ocnitsa]

Wondering what people think about this graphics bump supposedLy coming next month.

 

[transpo1]

Computers get updated. That's what happens. What would you propose? That they put their computers on stop-sell prior to updates?

Not after 3 months, dude. They're pissing off loyal customers here.
[doublepost=1540954148][/doublepost]

trust me, a more powerful gpu in the same chassis and thermal enclosure...will get the next macbook pro even hotter

Except it's lower power from what I understand, so not sure about that.

 

[cfdlab]

The i9 2018 is known to have insufficient cooling and resulting throttling issues. Putting a more powerful gpu does not seem like a good idea.

 

[LK LAW]

Vega is another rehash of polaris, just because AMD calls it Vega this time around doesn't change that fact that performance of AMD cards scales linearly from 480 all the way to Vega 64 depending on clock and number of compute units, you can multiply the CUs by clock and come up with benchmark numbers for each revision. Unfortunately so does the power required to run it. To get 60% improvement over rx560x while using 20 CUs they would need to run it at 30% higher clocks which would most likely ignite a thermonuclear reaction inside MBP, create a sun that would eventually collapse into black hole leading to a wormhole to alternate universe from which Apple apparently gets their marketing staff.

Vega is architecturally quite different.
It is a super nova though because AMD, in an effort to stay somewhat competitive with nvidia pushed the chip way past its most efficient voltages and clock speeds.
So or Vega in the mbp is super underclocked, which would be weird cuz that will defo be slower than the 560x, or it is Vega on 7nm which will have mitigated the power and heat concerns...