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

[pier]

The big takeaway as I saw it was that this laptop is "unsuitable for hardcore gamers" (roughly paraphrased). But are hardcore gamers seem to me like they'd be hardly driven by portability and battery life, which is what this machine offers. Seems like the hardcore gamers would be more interested in the refreshed mac Pro, whenever that happens.

What about 3d modellers, high end video editing, motion graphics, etc?

You know, the pro guys.

 

[GoldenJoe]

Umm...why does it say my 2015 model gets better performance?
[doublepost=1479191451][/doublepost]

The 14 inch -> http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-blade

4.3 pounds, .7 inches, GTX 1060, 4K display, aluminum body


What on earth does power have to do with screen size?


You can play League with a toaster, so it'll be fine. Heroes of the Storm should be okay too.

I wish Apple would copy that keyboard.

 

[Jaekae]

I think being able to Display an Image at 5k is being used as a smokescreen to what a crap budget GPU's these "PRO" laptops have. Its a step sideways IMHO. I have used and tested Final Cut Pro X, Resolve, Adobe CC with the FASTEST OpenCL cards out there. OpenCL is not keeping up and Adobe CC and Resolve are un-usable with OpenCL. We all switched to CUDA/NVIDIA for Profession video and graphics. And we RUN circles around anything AMD offers.

Its a total smoke screen to have people say the laptop does 5k, and my laptop renders Final Cut Pro X, really fast..
well can it do anything else? Any other apps? Any other workflows? no, not quickly or efficiently.

Also we where testing all the fastest GPU's AMD had to offer. R9 and now the RX 480... OpenCL was just crap. I have done programming, OpenCL on paper is amazing, but it is not being utilized by the professional software makers and its not fast enough.

Their are other possible benefits of AMD GPU's, but my industry, TV, FILM, EDITING, VFX, COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION and MOTION GRAPHICS, Nvidia's are just dominating..

The RX480 is a $100 GPU in a $3600 laptop, its total BS.

Isnt it adobes fault they dont optimize for both nvidia and amd? If final cit works, adobe should be able to do it also

 

[Fishcake21]

FINALLY! A review that doesn't talk much about the touch bar, but the important thing like the GPU, compare to all the other reviewers, this is why ars technicas owns!


And I don't like the results...

 

[Jaekae]

Feels like they've been talking about external GPUs for eternities now. Will it ever take off?

Thunderbolt 3 is the first port thats fast enough to do it properly, so it should take off. Hope the big gpu makers make their own egpu enclosures

 

[Fishcake21]

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?

Ffaster than the embedded igpu 2016

 

[JordanNZ]

I don't get this "offscreen" vs. "onscreen" thing. WTF is "offscreen"?
Because as it sounds, I don't think I need to give a crap about it, as what I see and experience is the "onscreen". Where the "new" 455 is slower than the old 370X.

Am I missing something?

Offscreen means the cards render to a fixed resolution 1080p 'offscreen' buffer. So you can compare apples to apples (by taking differing screen resolution out of the equation).

The 455 is much faster than the 370x.

 

[Ishayu]

Absolute garbage GPU's. Barely faster than 3 year old $300 console machines, and half as fast as fast as a $400 console. Not even twice as fast as integrated graphics, and 1/4th as fast as the top end laptop GPU.

This, in a nutshell, is why I didn't buy this MacBook Pro. It simply can't do what I need it to do.

Just waiting for the new Razer Blade Pro 17".

 

[JordanNZ]

Absolute garbage GPU's. Barely faster than 3 year old $300 console machines, and half as fast as fast as a $400 console. Not even twice as fast as integrated graphics, and 1/4th as fast as the top end laptop GPU.

This, in a nutshell, is why I didn't buy this MacBook Pro. It simply can't do what I need it to do.

Just waiting for the new Razer Blade Pro 17".

What is it you need it to do?

 

[alexgowers]

I hope apple catches the upswing of gaming laptops in the next gen. If they put in a real dedicated gpu they would attract a huge new market and new partners. If they don't react I'll be a bit disappointed as this gen has missed the mark and totally ignored user desires and tech trends. I know gaming is low priority on macos but it's been pretty good on ios. I don't really get why they can't at least try it?

 

[DougOLis]

...Many here thought that Apple was delaying the rMBP 2016 as they were waiting on Iris Pro equipped quad skylakes. They were wrong...

It's possible that Apple was waiting, got sick of Intel delays and then decided they had to put something out.

 

[Abazigal]

I hope apple catches the upswing of gaming laptops in the next gen. If they put in a real dedicated gpu they would attract a huge new market and new partners. If they don't react I'll be a bit disappointed as this gen has missed the mark and totally ignored user desires and tech trends. I know gaming is low priority on macos but it's been pretty good on ios. I don't really get why they can't at least try it?

Apple prioritises battery life, silent fans and thinness with their laptops. Don't think these are compatible with gaming graphics cards, which traditionally suck a lot of battery power and produce a lot of heat and noise (because the fans have to spin faster).

 

[mrochester]

Absolute garbage GPU's. Barely faster than 3 year old $300 console machines, and half as fast as fast as a $400 console. Not even twice as fast as integrated graphics, and 1/4th as fast as the top end laptop GPU.

This, in a nutshell, is why I didn't buy this MacBook Pro. It simply can't do what I need it to do.

Just waiting for the new Razer Blade Pro 17".

If the Razer Blade Pro 17 is the right machine for you, that indicates the MBP has probably never been the right machine for your needs anyway.

 

[sommarvila]

I use my Macbook Pro on the field. It is used for tethered shooting, editing and exporting on the fly and everything in between. I bought a mid 2012 rMBP fully maxed out and it has worked great until the last 12 months where the files and workload seem to have become too much. I am worried that the new version with the GPU and lack of RAM won't cut it. I don't care about the money since this I am a professional and if I could pay $5,000 for a better GPU and 64 GB of Ram I would do it. And I think most professionals making a living out of their MBPs will agree. So how could Apple miss the boat on this?

There is no chance of me switching to Windows, so I am looking at maybe doing something with an iMac that could be classed as "semi-portal" to be able to get work done properly...

 

[itdk92]

I remarked about this earlier when it was discovered that Apple 'cheaped out' and used the same non-Iris Skylake quad core CPU's that Windows laptops have used for over a year. Many here thought that Apple was delaying the rMBP 2016 as they were waiting on Iris Pro equipped quad skylakes. They were wrong...
What this do with performance you ask? The Iris Pro equipped quads not only have have iGPU's that come close to dGPU performance (that's why the 2 prior rMBP 15's had a lower end iGPU model for <$2000 that is now gone), but also an edram cache that doubles as a L4 cache that speeds up many processes. The cheaper skylake quad lacks this feature.
The 35 watt instead of 45 watt power limit to satisfy Ive's thinness fetish also kills the performance. Skylake performs much better on DDR4, but the smaller chassis + 20% less battery forced Apple to use LPDDR3 which also locked the max memory to 16gb instead of 32gb. So in other words we're paying extra for inferior performance and expandability.
Welcome to 2016 MacWorld where you pay 'Pro' prices for 'Air' performance.

So "hard" to put a like on this post, because this is so true.

 

[Rockadile]

What about 3d modellers, high end video editing, motion graphics, etc?

You know, the pro guys.

They have dedicated desktops for that in their studios.
And if they're out...than their actually designing and filming...
[doublepost=1479205407][/doublepost]

Absolute garbage GPU's. Barely faster than 3 year old $300 console machines, and half as fast as fast as a $400 console. Not even twice as fast as integrated graphics, and 1/4th as fast as the top end laptop GPU.

This, in a nutshell, is why I didn't buy this MacBook Pro. It simply can't do what I need it to do.

Just waiting for the new Razer Blade Pro 17".

When was this not the case for the MBP? This isn't a new scenario.
[doublepost=1479205796][/doublepost]

I use my Macbook Pro on the field. It is used for tethered shooting, editing and exporting on the fly and everything in between. I bought a mid 2012 rMBP fully maxed out and it has worked great until the last 12 months where the files and workload seem to have become too much. I am worried that the new version with the GPU and lack of RAM won't cut it. I don't care about the money since this I am a professional and if I could pay $5,000 for a better GPU and 64 GB of Ram I would do it. And I think most professionals making a living out of their MBPs will agree. So how could Apple miss the boat on this?

There is no chance of me switching to Windows, so I am looking at maybe doing something with an iMac that could be classed as "semi-portal" to be able to get work done properly...

Are you shooting with a Phase One XF or something?
If I was that desperate, I'd get the nMP and a 15/17" monitor.
Pelican case with customized foam innards to put in all the computer stuff lol...

 

[Ishayu]

When was this not the case for the MBP? This isn't a new scenario.

2011 model didn't have a super fast GPU, but it was a heckuvalot faster for its time than this. It's been 5 years now since I got that model and the GPU performance has increased about 3x.

What is it you need it to do?

Mathematical modelling, CAD work, GPU acceleration for complex 3D visualizations, raytracing, etc., and games.

I'm an engineer. I travel quite a bit and do a lot of consultancy work, so power on the go is important.

 

[bmot]

The review contradicts in part with its own results:

The 2015 MacBook Pro's dedicated GFX is faster than the testet midrange 2016 model's.

 

[magbarn]

It's possible that Apple was waiting, got sick of Intel delays and then decided they had to put something out.

It's may be possible but unlikely considering Intel NUCs have been available for over 7 months with skylake iris pro cpus with no shortages at all. Also,the previous rMBPs 15 2013-2015 were the only laptops that i can think of that used iris pro quad cpus in laptops, the windows models used the lower end models that Apple is using now. I think the curse of Ive has more to do with as the i7 skylake with iris pro requires the full 45 watt while the non iris models can be throttled down to 35 watts so Jony can use a thinner chassis and much smaller battery

The graph below is telling own much a difference the edram cache makes, notice how little improvement (it's actually a loss of performance!) gimped skylake is without edram and DDR4:

 

[bmot]

When was this not the case for the MBP? This isn't a new scenario.

It is a sad thing however that it is still the case, hence no innovation in performance at all. Just a minor speed bump, not worth the four year wait alone.

 

[MacBH928]

So to make this laptop few mm thinner and able to drive 6 displays, they gave was weaker gpu more expensive hardware?

I really would like to know whats the percentage of macbook pro users that connect their laptop to more than 3 displays and are upset with few mm thicker laptop.

Also, if you drive 6 screens I am going to guess you are usually on your desk and you don't carry those screens with you, so you need a "desk" top not a "lap" top.

 

[zhenya]

So to make this laptop few mm thinner and able to drive 6 displays, they gave was weaker gpu more expensive hardware?

I really would like to know whats the percentage of macbook pro users that connect their laptop to more than 3 displays and are upset with few mm thicker laptop.

Also, if you drive 6 screens I am going to guess you are usually on your desk and you don't carry those screens with you, so you need a "desk" top not a "lap" top.

We aren't talking a few mm here. The difference between the GPU's that Apple has chosen, and anything that will outperform them significantly is something like 50W of power consumption. That has a huge impact on form factor, battery size, weight, etc. Apple has built their Pro laptops to be what they believe to be the best balance of size/power/weight for as long as the MacBook Pro has had anything like the current form factor. I did a close analysis recently of the old 2010 17" MBP compared to a top of the line Mac Pro of the day, compared to what we get in these new MacBook Pro's. The reality is that Apple continues to make their laptops thinner and lighter with better battery life because they have been able to do so while also rapidly closing the power gap between their laptops and a high-end workstation. And thin and light with good battery life is what sells laptops.

If you look at the laptop that everyone seems to think Apple should have followed suit on - the Razer Blade - with a similar processor, similar form factor, and a much more powerful graphics card - the GTX 1080 and DDR4 RAM, you can see how those decisions completely tip the balance. Apple's 15" MBP is only .15" longer and wider than Razer's 14" model. Yet the battery life is so variable on the Razer that they don't even mention the battery life once in their extensive marketing materials. User reviews are showing that it gets between 2-6 hours, with most users getting about 4-5 hours under very light usage (not even using the graphics card) and that's with the 1080p screen. Opt for the 4k screen and those numbers fall further.

Now that the reviews are out, people are going crazy because some of the MBP's are only getting 6-7 hours of battery life under some workloads. Apple is consistent in targeting all-day battery life in all of their products. For most users, most of the time, that appears to be the right choice.

 

[Ishayu]

The difference between the GPU's that Apple has chosen, and anything that will outperform them significantly is something like 50W of power consumption.

Upgrading to a GTX 1060 would've been 15W more. The laptop already uses 85W, that would've brought us to 100W, which is precisely the power limit of USB-C.

The GTX 1060 has 2½ times the compute power of the Pro 460.

Yes, I did the math.

The only reason this couldn't be done is because Ive wanted to make the laptop a couple millimetres thinner and therefore it wouldn't be able to dissipate those extra 15W worth of heat. That's literally it.

 

[mrochester]

Upgrading to a GTX 1060 would've been 15W more. The laptop already uses 85W, that would've brought us to 100W, which is precisely the power limit of USB-C.

The GTX 1060 has 2½ times the compute power of the Pro 460.

Yes, I did the math.

The only reason this couldn't be done is because Ive wanted to make the laptop a couple millimetres thinner and therefore it wouldn't be able to dissipate those extra 15W worth of heat. That's literally it.

Doesn't Apple also need an AMD GPU for OpenCL performance, or did I not understand something?

 

[thunng8]

Upgrading to a GTX 1060 would've been 15W more. The laptop already uses 85W, that would've brought us to 100W, which is precisely the power limit of USB-C.

The GTX 1060 has 2½ times the compute power of the Pro 460.

Yes, I did the math.

The only reason this couldn't be done is because Ive wanted to make the laptop a couple millimetres thinner and therefore it wouldn't be able to dissipate those extra 15W worth of heat. That's literally it.

No.. gtx 1060 is 80w. It is not 15w more than 460pro is it 45w more.

I think you are confused with the upcoming 1050, which is approx 50w.