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

[theluggage]

Umm...why does it say my 2015 model gets better performance?

As far as I can discern: The 2015 rMBP runs the screen at the native resolution of 2880x1800, but with the resolution of text, icons etc. doubled to make them the same physical size as they were on the old, nonretina, 1440x900 display.

The 2016 MBP instead defaults to "scaled mode" whereby the screen is rendered at a higher resolution - 3360 x 2100 - and then down-sampled to fit the physical screen resolution of 2880x1800, so the physical size of text and icons will be slightly smaller, physically (remember the old "high res" display option on the pre-retina MBP?) - this "scaled mode" was an option in the 2015 and earlier MacBooks. You can choose other settings.

This means that the GPU in the 2016 model is effectively driving a bigger screen & resampling, which wipes out the performance improvement on some benchmarks. The display should be better - its vaguely like the "full screen anti-aliasing" option in some games.

It does, however, highlight that these GPUs aren't night & day faster than the old ones.

 

[sundragon]

Apple dropped Intel's integrated Iris Pro graphics in favor of dedicated AMD graphics across its entire new 15-inch MacBook Pro lineup, resulting in performance improvements over previous models. Perhaps more interestingly, the switch to AMD provides expanded external display support that desktop users have patiently waited for.

As Andrew Cunningham at Ars Technica explains, AMD's Polaris-based Radeon Pro 450, Radeon Pro 455, and built-to-order Radeon Pro 460 GPUs in the new 15-inch MacBook Pro support up to six displays, whereas Intel's integrated GPUs affixed to the logic board can drive a total of three displays.

The expanded support enables the new MacBook Pro to drive two of Apple and LG's new UltraFine 5K displays at 60Hz simultaneously. Intel's GPUs can't because, due to bandwidth limitations of the DisplayPort 1.2 spec, the two 5K displays technically function as four displays. This method is known as Multi-Stream Transport (MST).Apple could have used Nvidia's faster Pascal-based GPUs, which support DisplayPort 1.3, but Thunderbolt 3 and most monitors do not support the higher-bandwidth spec yet. In the meantime, Nvidia's GPUs can only drive up to three displays beyond the main MacBook Pro screen -- not enough for dual 5K displays over MST.In terms of performance improvements, Cunningham benchmarked the mid-range 2.7GHz 15-inch MacBook Pro with the Radeon Pro 455 graphics chip to determine just how much faster the notebook truly is compared to the 2016 12-inch MacBook and older MacBook Pros released over the past few years.

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, but said the new MacBook Pro remains unsuitable for high-end gaming and VR.Apple officially says the 15-inch MacBook Pro offers up to 130% faster graphics performance, and up to 2.5x more computing power per watt, compared to the previous-generation 15-inch MacBook Pro, but those stats are based on the built-to-order Radeon Pro 460 chip that costs between $100 and $200 extra.

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

How about the complete lack of perspective the 455 uses 30W the 1060 is rated at 65W... There is a huge difference in performance because it uses more power. Plus these aren't really gaming machines, ATI doesn't say "gaming" anywhere on their site re these chips.

The 2015 is rendering less pixels than the 2016, the off screen benchmarks give you a better idea. I'd take a look at the 460's performance vs 455, there is a considerably more GPU power.
[doublepost=1479214487][/doublepost]

no **** sherlock of course its a significant boost compared to old 28nm technology. stack the 455 or 460 against any "current" gen gpu tech and its literally the bottom of the crap barrel.
[doublepost=1479149816][/doublepost]
there is no 1080m all current gen laptop have desktop gpu in them. since the 16nm gpu is efficient enough to be not cut back like all the previous gen. so hes not wrong when he say to put in perspective.

LOL to your name calling. How about reading COMPREHENSION?

The 1080 is a 180W part you're comparing to a 35W chip. Sherlock, how about comparing a 35W Nvidia chip for appropriate performance... I mean why don't we compare compare the 460 to an 1080 SLI rig that consumes 360W and then go "hmmm.... Why isn't it as fast?!?" You need to compare apples to apples, Einstein....

 

[robeddie]

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.

Thats a fallacy. Up until the last few years of apples accelerating drive to thiness, Macbook Pro laptops had pretty high end (relatively speaking) graphics.

 

[mrochester]

Thats a fallacy. Up until the last few years of apples accelerating drive to thiness, Macbook Pro laptops had pretty high end (relatively speaking) graphics.

My MBP only has a 750m, which was decidedly mid-range at the point in time the laptop was released and positively obsolete now.

 

[Romy90210]

Sure you can run dual 5k displays.. that is if you only want to display the desktop and nothing else... Real life test show the laptop will freeze and lags like hell with only a few programs open...

 

[idark77]

No it's not. The 2016 was doing the onscreen test at a higher resolution. Apple use a default higher res in the 2016.

Ok so the 2016 is a little bit faster.

 

[bill44]

But you then couldn't have TB devices and the display connected via a single cable. And if you were to drive a 5K monitor over USB-C DP alternate mode, you'd need all four main lanes of USB-C which leaves only USB 2 speeds available via the secondary lines in USB-C.

Compare this with driving a 5K display over a TB3 connection. Since "USB alternate modes do not encapsulate other protocols (ala Thunderbolt) but instead allocate lanes to those other signals as necessary", once the lanes are allocated to DP, no other data can flow over these lanes. With TB (incl. TB3) all data are encapsulated in the same bus and TB3 chain with a 5K display only needs to dedicate bandwidth and not lanes to the video signal. Even at 10-bit per colour channel, 5K at 60 Hz 'only' needs 14.75 MP * 30 bit/pixel * 60 Hz = 26.6 Gbit/s, meaning there is still more than 10 Gbit/s (from the 40 Gbit/s total bandwidth of TB3) available for other uses in that TB3 chain. That is much more than USB 2 speeds and can be used more flexibly for any kind of protocol (Firewire, Ethernet, etc.).
[doublepost=1479175406][/doublepost]

Nice theory.
How many 5K monitors (TB3 USB-C connection) are available with USB 3.1 Gen 1 or Gen 2 connection? Or TB3 pass-through?
I'm trying to find a way to connect 3x 4K@60Hz monitors to the new MBP.
Ideal solution would be a TB3 dock plus a USB-C DP Alt mode to DP 1.2 adapter.

Ideal TB3 Dock (not available)
2x TB3 port (for in & out)
2x DP 1.2 (to connect 2x 4K@50Hz screens)
1x Gbit Ethernet port (because MBP does not have one)
2x USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-A ports (as far as I know, no Gen2 speed ports available on any TB3 dock)
2x USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C ports ((as far as I know, no Gen2 speed ports available on any TB3 dock)
everything else is optional...

Instead, we have docks that offer HDMI 1.4 (not 2.0b), 1x DP 1.2 (not 2x), USB 3.0 ports (Gen 1 speed, not Gen 2) etc. etc. Not one, that allow me to connect 2x 4K@60Hz monitors without extra converters or adapters.

Since no 'proper' docks are available, a USB Type-C DP Alt Mode to 2x DP 1.2 would be nice.

Who will make my goodies I can connect to the MBP?

 

[manu chao]

Well there was that 40%+ performance gain in the iGPU...

Look, its not exactly that its "just 1.5% performance gain", its that you're paying top dollar for a new machine with old tech. 1.5% is something after all and in 2015/early 2016.

No, 0.75% (the presumed advance of Broadwell over Haswell) is not 'something', it is de facto nothing. It's barely measurable, it's something you'll never be able to notice.

you'd have thought if you were gonna spend $2000+ on a laptop you'd get the option to get every last 1.5% performance gain that is commonly available, no?

Putting a performance per price marker on this, you are upset about a $15 price difference (0.75% of $2000). And no, I am not riled up about a potential 0.75% performance deficit if I am paying $2000+ because I can live without the absolute best. I haven't bought the high-end processor option in many, many years. The differences in the processor options imply a performance difference between 12 and 14%. Anybody not getting the top option has no right to complain about a lack of options to get a 0.75% performance increase, because they willingly decided that absolute top performance is not worth that price difference.

This fixation on superficial aspects (the release date) and not the substance (the performance) is a clear example of putting simplistic messages before constructive solutions.
[doublepost=1479215626][/doublepost]

How many 5K monitors (TB3 USB-C connection) are available with USB 3.1 Gen 1 or Gen 2 connection? Or TB3 pass-through?

You don't need no fricking pass-through at the monitor, you can put TB3 devices between the computer and the display in the TB3 chain, even a TB3 dock will do, giving you all the ports you could hope for.

 

[theluggage]

How about the complete lack of perspective the 455 uses 30W the 1060 is rated at 65W... There is a huge difference in performance because it uses more power.

Except, that's not the point. There's no doubt that the new MBPs are kick-ass "ultrabooks", and if what you really need is an ultra portable, ultra light, ultra thin laptop with as much power as you can reasonably squeeze into that form factor and still enjoy 10-hour battery life, and you have the cash, then they're great machines.

The problem is that if you don't want a kick-ass ultrabook, the only thing that Apple currently have to offer is last year's iMac (not bad, but still only mobile-class graphics), a 3-year-old MacPro (possibly heading for discontinuation - they're about hitting the window when commercial users' leases will be up for renewal) and a 2-year-old Mac Mini that was disappointing when launched.

...couple this with a price hike (at least for the lower-end options) the (not Apple's fault - but we still have to pay) exchange rate adjustment and the few-hundred-bucks worth of cables & adapters many of us will need. Not good.

 

[vkd]

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,

Wait a minute, perhaps I am getting old and losing my sight, but it seems to me from the above graphic, that the 2015 15" MBP with AMD Radeon R9 M370X scored 96.9, 45.8 and 29.6, whilst the 2016 15" MBP with Radeon Pro 455 scored 92.9, 40.1 and 26.8 in the tests respectively. According to my dull vision those are higher values, indicating that no "significant boost" has been gained with the new model.

 

[kettle]

I am ready to spend $4,500 on a maxed out model after hearing this.

you forgot to put (not sarcastic) at the end of your post.

 

[OVERTASK]

My MBP only has a 750m, which was decidedly mid-range at the point in time the laptop was released and positively obsolete now.

Perhaps Apple hopes controlled obsolescence of the GPUs will lead to more sales in the future hence having put in a reasonable GPU in a Macbook Pro since 2008 (just barely decent).

 

[mrochester]

Wait a minute, perhaps I am getting old and losing my sight, but it seems to me from the above graphic, that the 2015 15" MBP with AMD Radeon R9 M370X scored 96.9, 45.8 and 29.6, whilst the 2016 15" MBP with Radeon Pro 455 scored 92.9, 40.1 and 26.8 in the tests respectively. According to my dull vision those are higher values, indicating that no "significant boost" has been gained with the new model.

You're not getting old or losing your sight, but that's only one benchmark. Look at the rest of them.

 

[theluggage]

You don't need no fricking pass-through at the monitor, you can put TB3 devices between the computer and the display in the TB3 chain, even a TB3 dock will do, giving you all the ports you could hope for.

More to the point, your 5k@60Hz display is eating- what, 30Gbps? - of your 40gbps TB3 bandwidth, and filling both of its 2 virtual DisplayPort channels. OK, so that's technically 10Gbps free, but are you telling me that Thunderbolt is the first technology in the history of technology that can actually deliver its full theoretical bandwidth in reality?

I wouldn't daisychain things on the same TB3 port as a 5k display if I could avoid it.

 

[Steve121178]

I am ready to spend $4,500 on a maxed out model after hearing this.

You must be crazy.

 

[NT1440]

You must be crazy.

Or...he knows what computer he wants?

Personally I think anyone that spends $30K+ on a car, any car, is "crazy" but I don't disparage their want for one.

 

[Steve121178]

Or...he knows what computer he wants?

Personally I think anyone that spends $30K+ on a car, any car, is "crazy" but I don't disparage their want for one.

Sure, if it ticks the boxes, then go and get it.

In my book, Apple are giving too little for too much money. The GPU options in the 2016 models are crap. Crazy.

 

[NT1440]

Sure, if it ticks the boxes, then go and get it.

In my book, Apple are giving too little for too much money. The GPU options in the 2016 models are crap. Crazy.

And yet it's the only machine on the market I'm aware of that can drive two 5K displays. Crazy how the gaming rigs can't do it....

 

[mrochester]

Sure, if it ticks the boxes, then go and get it.

In my book, Apple are giving too little for too much money. The GPU options in the 2016 models are crap. Crazy.

Good job your opinion doesn't matter to anyone but yourself then

 

[Steve121178]

Good job your opinion doesn't matter to anyone but yourself then

If it didn't matter to you, then you wouldn't have wasted time replying.

 

[greenmeanie]

I recommend the MSI Vortex.

"Breaking news: Macs suck when it comes to gaming capabilities compared to their newer PC counterparts. In other news, water, is it wet? We'll tell you more on this at 11:00..."

Seriously, folks, if you were thinking of getting a new computer for the specific purpose of playing newer games at max resolution and specs, Apple is not your friend, especially with notebook dGPUs. Get a gaming desktop PC from Alienware (Dell), Asus, or Razer.

 

[mrochester]

If it didn't matter to you, then you wouldn't have wasted time replying.

Whatever makes you think that? Your opinion doesn't matter to me or anyone else on this forum. Your post seemed to suggest it should matter and I was just pointing out that it doesn't. Nor does my opinion, or anyone else's.

 

[theitsage]

I'd like to see performance benchmarks of a maxed out 15" MBP hooked up to two 5K displays - similar to this setup Apple was showing journalists after the announcement.

Based on benchmarks of the Radeon Pro 460 from forum members yesterday, my guess is any editing work on such a setup will not be pleasant. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Apple could have enabled eGPU support by integrating one inside these displays. The user experience would be the same - one thunderbolt 3 cable to convert your MBP into a much more expandable workstation.

15" MacBook Pro with Intel 530 & Radeon Pro 460



13" MacBook Pro with Intel 540 & Radeon RX 470 eGPU

 

[nsayer]

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

You know, the pro guys.

Their needs are not the same as gamers. I posit that their needs *are* met fairly well by this laptop insofar as it supports multiple high resolution external displays.

 

[jjjoseph]

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

Absolutely true. Couldn't agree more. But when a client asks why their project isn't done you can't say. "Well it's not my fault. Adobe doesn't optimize for OpenCL".

When I build pipelines for Post Production, as technology sits right now, OpenCL and AMD are never an option.

Honestly it's a bummer because I was really into AMD for price and performance at one time.

If people can get everything they need to get done inside of Final Cut Pro X with a budget GPU, the 460. More power to them. But for me and my company it's miserable to use Final Cut Pro X on a super slow budget GPU.

But my company has to keep up with the standard to even stay afloat and that standard is NVIDIA and CUDA.

This Could change, but Apples not really leading it. They have been slowly stripping down their Programs to nothing. Final Cut Pro, Shake, Appature, DVD Studio Pro, and others. They all used to compete with the high end professional apps of their time. This is obviously progress for a slimmer production pipeline, but it's also way more limited and something my company if they embraced would make it so we couldn't compete and keep clients.