Radeon Pro 450 2GB vs 460 4GB

[Fthree]

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.


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.

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.

sorry if i read over your answer but what are you currently using and what did that config run you $$_---If you dont mind.

 

[justin216]

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.

In fairness, while I no longer play it, the last few expansions have greatly increased graphical fidelity and resource demand. It requires a pretty current machine to run fluently at maximum settings. The 460 can probably expect High settings at native resolution. I ran it at a mix of medium and high on the 2015 rMBP.

 

[RevToTheRedline]

In fairness, while I no longer play it, the last few expansions have greatly increased graphical fidelity and resource demand. It requires a pretty current machine to run fluently at maximum settings. The 460 can probably expect High settings at native resolution. I ran it at a mix of medium and high on the 2015 rMBP.

Fair enough, Blizzard still needs to get off their high horse and just make it free to play already, 2016 still charging $14.99 a month for the game is silly, but with still ~2 million active players I guess they see it as solid profit still.

 

[Fthree]

Fair enough, Blizzard still needs to get off their high horse and just make it free to play already, 2016 still charging $14.99 a month for the game is silly, but with still ~2 million active players I guess they see it as solid profit still.

How well does your 2015 15 play it?

 

[Gregintosh]

If someone had to put the performance difference in percentage terms, what would it be? Would the 4GB card be twice as fast at processing 4K video?

I am trying to just figure out if the upgrade is worth it for someone who would edit 4K videos shot on the iPhone.

 

[Domooo]

Is there a difference if I want to connect to external monitors.

Thank you

 

[jetho]

sorry if i read over your answer but what are you currently using and what did that config run you $$_---If you dont mind.

Im am currently using a Mid 2012 13" MBA. It's the standard config with 1.8GHz i5, 128GB SSD. Just upgrades the RAM to 8GB. I don't know exactly what the retail price was back then, but I think it was somewhere around 1200-1400€.

 

[Ethosik]

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

My GTX 980 and 1080 have a hard time with WoW sometimes. That is crazy
[doublepost=1478196800][/doublepost]

In fairness, while I no longer play it, the last few expansions have greatly increased graphical fidelity and resource demand. It requires a pretty current machine to run fluently at maximum settings. The 460 can probably expect High settings at native resolution. I ran it at a mix of medium and high on the 2015 rMBP.

Not true. I can't even play on High settings (comfortably) on my $700 GTX 1080 (rest of the system is 32GB of RAM, 6-core i7 desktop). I still get down to 15 fps in some areas. Yet, I can play the new Doom or GTA 5 on MAX at 144fps/hz with NO issues.

 

[Fishcake21]

That's debatable considering the Polaris chip architecture and all the details that have been released. It may be throttled, but "More now than ever before" is an unjustified assumption

They could've gave us polaris 10 like 480 but that would really throttle things up due to tdp on the casing

 

[Nick.Xiao]

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.

The SCREEN is the most important factor. If you are watching it on the attached display. All recent computers have absolutely no problem doing this.

 

[Nick.Xiao]

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.

How about connecting to external displays? The GPU has something to with that right? The 15-inch is said to be able to push two 5K displays along with the native display which is almost 34.7 million pixels (the pixel count is actually already over 8K, which is technically at 33.18 million pixels), or even more astoundingly, FOUR 4K displays with the native display, well over 8K resolution at almost 43 MILLION pixels. I wonder if the base model be able to do that without lag? Well actually I'm worrying about whether the top-of-the-line 460 will be able to push it without noticeable frame drops on even just day-to-day tasks.

One other thing I'm curious about: what's the real reason that it can't connect to a single 8K display? Is is for display bandwidth (there should be enough, just use up all 4 ports) or pushing a single 8K is somehow harder than pushing 4*4K? Or it's just that they think that the era of 8K is still far from here? Also, 8K displays have been shown at expos and tradeshows for over 5 years now, I've seen one at a tradeshow myself several years ago, and still no one is putting an 8K computer monitor on market, another thing I can't tell why. Too insufficient on a tiny production scale since almost no one want one? Well at least I want one, 4 grand for 40-something-inch diagonal (and that's probably too cheap a price for them considering the tiny scale they can get to).

 

[jkdem85]

Hi there,

I am currently deciding what configuration option for the new 15" MBP I should choose. I have already decided on CPU (2.6GHz i7), RAM (16GB) and the SSD (512GB), but I am still unsure which GPU to buy: the Radeon Pro 450 2GB or the Pro 460 4GB.
I know that currently I don't need the upgrade to the 460. I am coming from a Mid 2012 Air and am mostly pleased with the graphic performance. But since the new MBP should last me al least 4-5yrs, I am not sure that this will be the case in the future.
So my question is basically what possible use cases would take advantage from the better GPU? I know that generally photo/video editing will run faster, but what level of photo editing are we talking about? Are there other scenarios?
I am not looking for any exact answers, just trying to get a general understanding/feeling for the matter.

Also, this is not really a deciding factor, but I would be interested in playing Civ6. Would any GPU option disqualify for that? Or will/won't it run on any of those?

I am grateful for any input on the matter!

Cheers and thanks,
jetho

I'm running civ VI on my 2012 retina MBP 15 no problem , you will fly on any MBP unit bought in 2016

 

[aevan]

How about connecting to external displays? The GPU has something to with that right? The 15-inch is said to be able to push two 5K displays along with the native display which is almost 34.7 million pixels (the pixel count is actually already over 8K, which is technically at 33.18 million pixels), or even more astoundingly, FOUR 4K displays with the native display, well over 8K resolution at almost 43 MILLION pixels. I wonder if the base model be able to do that without lag? Well actually I'm worrying about whether the top-of-the-line 460 will be able to push it without noticeable frame drops on even just day-to-day tasks.

One other thing I'm curious about: what's the real reason that it can't connect to a single 8K display? Is is for display bandwidth (there should be enough, just use up all 4 ports) or pushing a single 8K is somehow harder than pushing 4*4K? Or it's just that they think that the era of 8K is still far from here? Also, 8K displays have been shown at expos and tradeshows for over 5 years now, I've seen one at a tradeshow myself several years ago, and still no one is putting an 8K computer monitor on market, another thing I can't tell why. Too insufficient on a tiny production scale since almost no one want one? Well at least I want one, 4 grand for 40-something-inch diagonal (and that's probably too cheap a price for them considering the tiny scale they can get to).

1. I think all Radeon cards will work fine with external displays. But, I have to admit, it's just a guesstimate. Based on my experience with the iMac 5K and with attaching a 4K display to a MacBook with Iris 6100, I would say that all GPUs Apple puts in their computers are more than capable of running high-res screens.

There was some lag in Yosemite, mostly with Mission Control. That lag had more to do with pulling data from open apps than with the GPU itself. It was fixed in El Capitan, but it can still occur with lots of apps open - but only the first time you invoke Mission Control.

In fact, I did some tests - whenever the GPU gets stressed, the temperature rises. However, when I use any UI interface, like Mission Control, even for an extended period of time - the temperature remains the same. In fact, the GPU doesn't really get stressed while using anything that isn't specifically graphically intensive. So, unless you intend to game, I don't see a problem with running high-res external displays. But, I guess the safest thing is to wait for reviews.

2. 8K displays would be more demanding than 4 4K displays because you use most apps/games on a single display. And yeah, this is also just a guess, but I think driving an 8K picture on one screen, even with multiple cables, is technically more difficult. But the real reason is most likely the fact that these monitors are still hard to produce and the benefits are questionable.

 

[richpjr]

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.

That is the exact same configuration as what I ordered.

 

[jerwin]

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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070105103437/http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/technology.html

Recommended Specifications

Windows® System 2000/XP OS:

• Intel Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or AMD XP 1500+ MHz
• 1024 MB RAM
• 64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX 5700 class card or above
• Broadband Internet connection
• Two-button scroll-wheel mouse

Mac® OS X 10.3.9 or newer:

• 1024 MB RAM or higher; DDR RAM recommended
• ATI or NVIDIA® video hardware with 64 MB VRAM or more
• Broadband Internet connection

 

[Nick.Xiao]

1. I think all Radeon cards will work fine with external displays. But, I have to admit, it's just a guesstimate. Based on my experience with the iMac 5K and with attaching a 4K display to a MacBook with Iris 6100, I would say that all GPUs Apple puts in their computers are more than capable of running high-res screens.

There was some lag in Yosemite, mostly with Mission Control. That lag had more to do with pulling data from open apps than with the GPU itself. It was fixed in El Capitan, but it can still occur with lots of apps open - but only the first time you invoke Mission Control.

In fact, I did some tests - whenever the GPU gets stressed, the temperature rises. However, when I use any UI interface, like Mission Control, even for an extended period of time - the temperature remains the same. In fact, the GPU doesn't really get stressed while using anything that isn't specifically graphically intensive. So, unless you intend to game, I don't see a problem with running high-res external displays. But, I guess the safest thing is to wait for reviews.

2. 8K displays would be more demanding than 4 4K displays because you use most apps/games on a single display. And yeah, this is also just a guess, but I think driving an 8K picture on one screen, even with multiple cables, is technically more difficult. But the real reason is most likely the fact that these monitors are still hard to produce and the benefits are questionable.

Thanks! Yeah, I think I'll wait for the reviews. Although in fact I would only connect it to one 5K display, since the main reasons for me to use external displays are Adobe Lightroom and more room for daily tasks. Because neither's exactly graphic intensive, I believe even the baseline would most likely be fine. The reason I'm curious about 450/460's performance with multiple external displays is that I'm really looking forward to a yet-to-come single 8K display, lighting up over 30 million pixels, ready to connect to a laptop and reasonably priced. Hope I can get it by 2020.

 

[enthawizeguy]

Do I need above the 450 2gb for Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop and maybe some final cut. I most likely will never play games but i want those apps to run fast? I ordered the 450 but was thinking about upgrading.

 

[tivoboy]

Any thoughts or data about battery life comparing these two?

 

[enthawizeguy]

well i just ended up upgrading to the 460 and 2.7 since it was only 100 dollars. Apple doesn't verify education discounts if you order online i guess and i do plan on going back to school in the next 6 months so i don't feel bad. So i saved 200 and cancelled my original order and will wait 2 extra weeks.

 

[blSwagger]

For photo editing, any one will work. We're many years past GPU being a limiting factor in still image editing (if that was ever even a factor. Which, come to think of it, it wasn't. Still images are processed in the CPU.)

You sure about that? The engineers at Adobe recommended at least 2gb gpu ram for Lightroom a year and a half ago.

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1828580

 

[kave]

I think Lightroom is a real slouch so to get it as fast ast possible get the best cpu and gpu if you need it to be as fast as possible. One of very few apps where I think people complain about performance still.

 

[arthurjohnson]

i would go the 460, it really isn't that much more $$$ for the upgrade..

I upgraded it, i also upgraded to the 2.9ghz.... but i think that the graphics upgrade is the most important upgrade over the CPU increase.

Agree and did same. Having bought laptops since 1991, I routinely max out everything on a brand I trust, on the rationale that this may extend the working life of the machine from 1-2 years — and even one year of extra life will (a) save me thousands of dollars otherwise spent on upgrading yet again (b) save me at least a week of time and uncounted aggravation in configuring that forgone upgrade — plus maxxing out affords me the fun of having the absolute best there is for at least the first two years. Figure in tax deductions and it's a no-brainer. Never have regretted getting the best configuration and more than once have kicked myself for false economies.

BTW, I tried to price out a similarly configured 2016 Surface Book, and the 15" Mac actually cost about the same as a similarly configured 13" SB — plus I found no 2TB option.

 

[MattSeven]

I have a question: is nobody concerned about the extra heat and power draw that come with the 460?

I'm not a heavy 3D graphics guy, and only create about 2 videos a week for a blog. So I understand I may not represent the norm. But I guess I would go with an iMac before I'd max out a throttling notebook with poor battery life. Not criticizing anyone because I know all needs are different, just saying that I do not see much of a discussion about this very real tradeoff.

 

[blSwagger]

I have a question: is nobody concerned about the extra heat and power draw that come with the 460?

I'm not a heavy 3D graphics guy, and only create about 2 videos a week for a blog. So I understand I may not represent the norm. But I guess I would go with an iMac before I'd max out a throttling notebook with poor battery life. Not criticizing anyone because I know all needs are different, just saying that I do not see much of a discussion about this very real tradeoff.

That was a major uneducated concern of mine, so I went with the 2.7/455 combo. Only time will tell. I'll be very upset if the 460 doesn't run much hotter because it would have been only $100 more and Lightroom might need 4gb VRAM in 2-5 years.

EDIT: I just placed another order for the 2.7/460 combo. I have a couple weeks to think about it, then I'll cancel or return one of them.

 

[dk808]

That was a major uneducated concern of mine, so I went with the 2.7/455 combo. Only time will tell. I'll be very upset if the 460 doesn't run much hotter because it would have been only $100 more and Lightroom might need 4gb VRAM in 2-5 years.

you can always return and order the 460 once reviews start coming in