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.
Radeon Pro 450 2GB vs 460 4GB
- Thread starter jetho
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Only if you really need it. For me, as an app & web developer, there's no need to upgrade to the 460. Or is there something that I overlook?
Exactly, no one really know yet because we don't know how efficient the new MacBook Pro 15" will be to get rid of the heat from the GPU. If it is not highly efficient, the GPU will throttle, and performance will go down.
One small, interesting fact is that the 460 in the MBP has 16 compute units where the desktop RX 460 has 14. But since the peak performance is rated lower as up to 1,86 TFLOPS (whereas the RX 460 has 2,2), it is also clearly clocked lower. Apparently that makes for a more energy efficient performance.
It is also important to note that the memory bandwidth is lower than that of the desktop RX 460. This suggest a lower clocked memory.
I had to go through exactly the same decision. I ended up going with the cheapest 450. The reason was that, although the 460 is much better, it is still by no means a gaming GPU so you'll always be limited no matter what, which means that if you want gaming the mac will never be a good choice, thus I prefer not spending the additional money that can go somewhere else. To be honest, most of the times one will be using the integrated GPU anyways so...
Thanks again for all your answers. I just placed my order for the 15". Went with the i7 2.6GHz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and the Radeon Pro 460 4GB.
Since the current ETA is early December, I'll still keep an eye out to early reviews and might revise my decision based on that. Also, coming from a 13" MBA I still have to hold the 15" in my hand to see wether it's not to big for my needs.
I am now going to cry myself to the end of the day thinking about the amount of money I just spend.
Ultimately this was basically what got me to order the 460. I think I can better live now with spending an extra 200€ "needlessly" and maybe get a touch more on resale value (not that I gamble on that) than needing a 460 and not having it.In that case, you're better off having it and not using it than needing it and not having it.
Since the current ETA is early December, I'll still keep an eye out to early reviews and might revise my decision based on that. Also, coming from a 13" MBA I still have to hold the 15" in my hand to see wether it's not to big for my needs.
I am now going to cry myself to the end of the day thinking about the amount of money I just spend.
Last edited:
Im just hoping that Razer Core is usable with Bootcamp at least. This would lessen my dilemma on choosing GPU too..
I've been running Polaris on my Mac Pro for weeks. I tried to justify the assumption based on the fact that even my efficient RX470 has very high fan RPMs under load.
Im sorry it was a serious question. Thank you for the response
Its been a few years since Ive been "tech savvy"
Is the graphics card the most important element for streaming video? Not sure why my fan goes nuts watching a simple movie on iTunes or streaming movies on Netflix/HBO Go. Is it worth getting the 460 if cost is not an issue for this purpose?
That happens because you have a very old laptop. It will not happen, even with integrate graphics
Thanks for your reply. You are certainly right about my having an old laptop. My 2010 Macbook pro has a dedicated graphics card but does have the fan run like crazy.
Youtube and Netflix run their newest decoders on the CPU.
Just for my education for a basic user who streams a lot of movies on iTunes and Netflix et al what component in the laptop is the most important to ensure a great viewing experience? CPU? Graphics card? RAM? Please assume a download rate of 50 Mbps. Thanks.
For people wondering about when the GPU gets used, a simple (but very loose) rule of thumb is, the GPU kicks in when the computer is actually generating graphics, not just displaying them.
If you play back a video, nothing's being generated. It's just being displayed from an existing file. The vast majority of graphics processing occurred last week on someone else's computer. Even if you do timeline edits to a video, again you're just clipping and ordering existing imagery, so it goes through CPU. The most expensive 3D action scene from Pacific Rim uses the same low amount of resources to play as a clip from Adventure Time. Because it's just pixels firing. The computer has no idea what's n the image, and limited input in how it appears, so the GPU is not necessary.
But if you add a filter to video, or put text over top of it, then graphical rendering occurs, and hence GPU kicks in. That's why video games are such high requirement – because the GPU literally has to draw every single frame from scratch based on a set of mathematical rules (combined with textures).
Even when you're doing still image editing, the GPU does very little, because no moving graphics are being drawn frame by frame.
So yeah, GPU is good when dynamic, moving images are being created in response to user input, and in relatively few other contexts.
Repeat: oversimplified rule of thumb.
The CPU is just a big truck. The GPU is a series of tubes. (joke!)
If you play back a video, nothing's being generated. It's just being displayed from an existing file. The vast majority of graphics processing occurred last week on someone else's computer. Even if you do timeline edits to a video, again you're just clipping and ordering existing imagery, so it goes through CPU. The most expensive 3D action scene from Pacific Rim uses the same low amount of resources to play as a clip from Adventure Time. Because it's just pixels firing. The computer has no idea what's n the image, and limited input in how it appears, so the GPU is not necessary.
But if you add a filter to video, or put text over top of it, then graphical rendering occurs, and hence GPU kicks in. That's why video games are such high requirement – because the GPU literally has to draw every single frame from scratch based on a set of mathematical rules (combined with textures).
Even when you're doing still image editing, the GPU does very little, because no moving graphics are being drawn frame by frame.
So yeah, GPU is good when dynamic, moving images are being created in response to user input, and in relatively few other contexts.
Repeat: oversimplified rule of thumb.
The CPU is just a big truck. The GPU is a series of tubes. (joke!)
Of course it will
At least, I hope so because I've just ordered one...What remains to be seen though is what the best graphics settings are in WoW, so that it looks good but doesn't get too hot during a long WoW session.
Anyway, I'm 100% certain it will be better than my 2009 'Core 2 Duo' MacBook Pro
No worries. WoW is a very simple game, even these days, in terms of graphics. It's never been on the bleeding edge.Im sorry it was a serious question. Thank you for the response
The 2.6 has less cache in case it's relevant for whatever you are going to be doing with it.
So if im gonna start editing music videos/ short films i probably will be fine with the 450? I want to upgrade to the 460 but i would rather save the money. I mostly will do photoshop/lightroom/ableton live or logic. At some point maybe video but than again i said that in 2011 when i got my last MacBook pro. ?
Apparently the 460 is ~35watts at max, whereas the m370x (which is what I have in my 2015 MBP) is ~50watts at max. That's a pretty huge difference...
I played WoW back in 2007 on my iMac at maxed out settings, if a 2016 MBP couldn't play it I'd laugh. the game came out like 15 years ago.