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

New MacBook Pro's Dedicated AMD Graphics Chips Are 'Significantly' Faster and Support Dual 5K Displays

keysofanxiety said:
How is that perspective? It's a desktop GPU. Unless you're talking about the 1080M, in which case you're looking at a laptop that's only portable on wheels.

And just for perspective, the 2012 Cray Titan outFLOPs a dual Xeon workstation.
Click to expand...

I'm really hoping this is the year of the eGPU then a lot of this will be meaningless. I'll take my 13" machine on the road and when I'm where I need power (at a desk) I have it. Best of both worlds for all but those you need a beefy GPU while on the go.

How many people does that scenario actually apply to? (I'm not being rhetorical either, seriously.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: idunn, Val-kyrie, netwalker and 1 other person
Why is the new macbook upscaling at 3360×2100 instead of 2880x1800? Does this mean Apple plans to release a 15 inch macbook with that resolution in the near future?
 
I recommend people hold off on the MacBook Pro for revision B in 2018. You can buy a 1 Year old Mac that is on a more powerful Skylake processor and support up to 64 GB of ram if you need more power for less than a top spec MacBook Pro.
 
manu chao said:
The difference is that the 2015 15" MBP was run a nominal resolution of 1440 x 900, whereas the 2016 15" MBP is run by default at a nominal resolution of 1680×1050 (this means internally the GPU on the 2015 model has to render a 2880 x 1800 canvas, whereas on the 2016 model it has render a 3360 x 2100 canvas).
Click to expand...

I saw this quote but it doesn't make sense - according to Apple specs, the screens are identical:
https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

Nevermind - I get it now - different default "virtual" resolutions. :)
I think any pro would just use native 2,880 resolution - can you imagine how blurry it would be scaling 3360 to 2880? That would basically undo the entire retina resolution...
 
Great! now we can pretend openGL and Metal drivers are well optimized for anything other than FCX, it's not like switching workspaces have any lag and emojis are butter smooth!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
MacRumors said:



ars-2016-macbook-pro-benchmark.jpg

​
Click to expand...
​

Not sure what I'm missing here, it clearly shows the 2015 discrete option has a higher fps than the 2016 discrete.
 
Lets see I bought the first gen 15" MBP with Intel processors in 2006 for $2799, the first gen 17" unibody in 2009 for $2799, the first gen mid level retina in 2012 for $2799 USD and I will buy the mid range 2016 for $2799 USD (well more since I'll probably upgrade the GPU and SSD). I am not sure, but there seems to be a pattern of Apple pricing their first gens at around 2799 for the mid/high end which most people have forgotten about (or trying not to remember?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps, smoking monkey, TiquanS and 1 other person
keysofanxiety said:
You will not find a laptop with those specs, at that build quality, with that battery life, at that thinness. You conveniently ignore that what Apple do (the best possible compromise of the above criteria) is unmatched in the industry.

Your rhetoric of 'limited engineering effort' only further highlights the fact that you haven't seen it in the flesh. It's a marvel.

And for the thousandth time: if you'd rather a thicker laptop with better hardware specs, they're out there. But it's not with Apple. It never has been and it never will.
Click to expand...
I gave you a reluctant thumbs up. Everything you mentioned is true except what I bolded from your comment. You were pretty much right on point till you dropped that little hyperbolic nugget. It ain't a marvel. It's a solid laptop. It has nice attributes along with some unnecessary (imo) compromises. It is what Apple always delivers: a decent laptop for the masses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HelsinkiMac and Queen6
I'm confused.. which card is the better out of:

AMD Radeon Pro 450 (2GB)
AMD Radeon R9 M370X (2GB)

I guess this article is mainly talking about external displays but what about the native MacBook display?

I know Macs aren't gaming machines but I do use mine to play WOW and some emulators, it generally runs fine but I like to stay current so it can keep speeds and graphics as good as they can be.

I'd be going from the M370X to the pro 450.

Worth it?
 
I wonder how many professionals actually use 3 displays in their setup.

As for me, I'd rather go with an Iris Pro 580 (or P580) only in a 15" model, but it does not exist. Enjoying my whisper quite late 2013 Iris Pro 5200 MacBook Pro and the biggest reason for upgrade is Touch ID and 5k external display support (only one, not two).

Somehow I believe most people would be happy with Iris Pro 580 in 15" MacBook Pro and support of single external 5k display or two 4K screens, vs running almost as powerful(?) Radeon 550 dedicated graphics which eats the battery and produces heat. 2013 models with integrated GPU do run noticibly quieter then the ones with dedicated GPU as well as run cooler in general.

Looks like I did the right thing opting for maxed out 13" 2016 model.

*Next possible upgrade: back to 15" MacBook Pro with Iris Pro 780 and 256mb edram. Or not...)
 
jamesrp said:
That graph seems to show the 2015 AMD Radeon R9 M370X is faster than the 2016 cards. So which is it a significant boost or not?
Click to expand...

I am also wondering the same thing, I don't see where the 370x is address in the article other than the graph and this:
MacRumors said:
He found the Radeon Pro 455 to be a "significant boost" over the built-to-order dedicated GPUs available in the 2012-2015 MacBook Pro models, namely the Nvidia GeForce GTX 650M, Nvidia GeForce GTX 750M, and AMD Radeon R9 M370X respectively,
Click to expand...

But, looking at the graph, it looks like the 370x performed better. Am I missing something? Was the quote a mistake?
 
jdiamond said:
I saw this quote but it doesn't make sense - according to Apple specs, the screens are identical:
https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

Nevermind - I get it now - different default "virtual" resolutions. :)
I think any pro would just use native 2,880 resolution - can you imagine how blurry it would be scaling 3360 to 2880? That would basically undo the entire retina resolution...
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't undo the retina benefits. For two reasons:
  1. All content that is normally scaled anyway, essentially text and images (very rarely are images viewed at exactly 100%) is not affected. In fact all retina-aware applications are drawing text and images exactly the same regardless whether the nominal resolution is set to 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050. Essentially the applications are drawing onto a virtual canvas of 3360 x 2100 but any view or box within that canvas that contains text or images is drawing directly to the physical resolution of the screen.
  2. All the bitmap visual assets, eg, icons, buttons, any UI chrome will use the double-resolution retina versions, ie, they have twice the detail than these assets have on non-retina screens. Now, these visual assets are then scaled down (proportionally from the 3360 to 2880, ie, by a factor of 1.167x) but because you start with assets with twice the detail and the base physical pixel is half the size, this still looks noticeably better than a non-retina screen.
Until recently, the doubled-up 1440 x 900 nominal resolution (and its equivalent on the 13, 21.5, and 27" retina displays) was still the default, but these simulated resolutions have been an option from the beginning since 2012 and most people using them considered them to be quite fine. This first changed a bit with the 2015 12" MacBook whose default resolution was also something 'simulated', aka, a bit larger than the physical one. I don't think you have seen many people complaining about this with the 12" MacBook.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fastasleep
idark77 said:
2015 MBP with Radeon M370X is faster than 2016 MBP TB with Radeon 455.
It's amazing !!!
Click to expand...

I know, right?! Who would have guessed that last year's 15" MBP top-tier GPU would just barely outperform this year's 15" MBP mid-tier GPU? :rolleyes: Sarcasm aside, how about some true Apples-to-Apples (Pun intended) comparisons with the M370X vs. the Pro 460? You know, the 15" MBP top-tier GPU from this year? Just a thought?
 
Last edited:
I thought I've read that 5K displays on desktops require powerful graphics cards. How is it that a cheapo AMD notebook GPU can drive 2 simultaneously?
 
keysofanxiety said:
Windows laptops have always had better specs. Better CPUs, better GPUs, more RAM, bigger screens — this isn't anything new.
Click to expand...
And a key point here is that there is a range of different designs with Windows laptops. You have some that are thin and light and you have some that are powerful and heavy. You have some with a long battery life and some with a shortish battery life. With Apple only offering one 15" model (the previous generations had at least a small range between having a discrete GPU or not having it), there will always be Windows PCs that are better in some regard because no laptop can be best in all categories.

Part of the trouble with the naysayers is that they completely ignore history. It doesn't much help them if they want to sound like they know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: keysofanxiety
I just received one of the 2.9GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, Radeon Pro 460 with 4GB memory, and 16GB 2133MHz memory configurations (15" of course).

I'll gladly try a benchmark when I get home if someone gladly points me in the right direction of the correct software to give it a try on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lgswe, Pahanda, SoSickSadNslOw and 3 others
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