Radeon Pro 450 2GB vs 460 4GB

[Wildkraut]

- For certain things (such as 3Ds Max heavy use and a plethora of other 3d softwares) Windows have always offered better performance, period;

And regarding the AMD vs nVidia greatest forum war of our time you might want to investigate why people keep putting nVidia Gpus in their MacPros 5.1 rather than AMDs. You should really be wondering why they need power saving that much!

"prosumers/professionals will be fine with most of the specs/options, but the top specs don't fit the category of really demanding users, and these users are those that would have loved to have something more (like the 32Gbs of RAM) that others couldn't care less (those who are fine with 16) but for them are crucial."

I started as a kid with Povray+Moray, used 3d Studio R4 DOS by Kinetix, used Alias PowerAnimator and Alias|Wavefront Maya 1.0 by SGI, Softimage|3D when it was owned by Microsoft, etc.
As you can see I have a long and old history of 3D Software usage, and most time it was at a professional "paid" level, so let me counter a bit.

Windows does not offer the best performance anymore, except for 3DStudioMax, because it exist only for Windows.
Big Studios like ILM,Pixar,etc. run a lot of different operating systems, but the key ones run "Linux" with Maya.

For 3D content creation, yes Nvidia was always #1, but not because of it's better hardware, because of its better driver support for Quadro Cards.

Remember: GeForce are Gaming Cards and this means, No overlay planes support, No quad buffered stereo, no hardware accelerated points and lines, No clip regions.

And yes often people keep choosing Nvidia, because historically they are used to choose it.
These days are more or less over, AMD hardware just works now, too.
Most 3D Software Packages work equally good with AMD.

Renderers like Indigo,LuxRender supports Cuda and OpenCL equally good.

I will use the MacBook Pro also for GPU rendering, and I'm looking forward to use it. 16GB RAM+4GB GFXRAM will suit my mobile needs nicely for many many tasks. Heavy duty stuff I simply previs on the 128GBRAM XEON machine near me.

Anyway, 32GB won't make a huge difference. And the ones who hopes to have a single Laptop System to master all their "professional" situations, are simply doing it wrong. Those Vfx,3D,Animators,Graders,Editors "prosumers and professionals" should better buy a decent workstation with plenty of RAM, certified hardware and drivers, decently calibrated displays and stop moaning like kids. There is absolutely no reason to be upset or sad and moan about the 16GB. This is just all based on a wrong point of view, which in my opinion just reflects their unprofessionalism.

To support AMD a bit:
https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?361113-Mr-Snippy&p=2807116&viewfull=1#post2807116

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Indigo-4-Beta-Graphics-Over-CL

 

[GCMD]

If you're not doing those video encoding tasks day in and day out, I'd say the base 450 should be fine. Really the CPU is most important when it comes to strictly encoding. For video editing in something like Final Cut or Premiere, the dGPU matters more.

For browsing you're not going to notice a benefit with a different dGPU and it should be using the iGPU as much as possible during browsing for battery life purposes.

So the 2.7GHz / 512GB / 455 will be more than enough? I need/want the 512GB SSD...and B&H has that one for the same price as the 2.6GHz / 450 with an upgrade to 512GB SSD...

 

[xmonkey]

So the 2.7GHz / 512GB / 455 will be more than enough? I need/want the 512GB SSD...and B&H has that one for the same price as the 2.6GHz / 450 with an upgrade to 512GB SSD...

Definitely will be more than enough

 

[Wildkraut]

If you're not doing those video encoding tasks day in and day out, I'd say the base 450 should be fine. Really the CPU is most important when it comes to strictly encoding. For video editing in something like Final Cut or Premiere, the dGPU matters more.

For browsing you're not going to notice a benefit with a different dGPU and it should be using the iGPU as much as possible during browsing for battery life purposes.

Well Final Cut uses the GPU for encoding/exporting, too.
But yes for his usage the AMD450 should be fine.

@GCMD

 

[wheelhot]

If you're using Final Cut, the 460 difference will be more noticeable then the 450, if you use Premiere, the difference will matter less cause from the vids I watch, it already under optimised the hardware on the new MBPs
[doublepost=1483055402][/doublepost]

Anyway, 32GB won't make a huge difference. And the ones who hopes to have a single Laptop System to master all their "professional" situations, are simply doing it wrong. Those Vfx,3D,Animators,Graders,Editors "prosumers and professionals" should better buy a decent workstation with plenty of RAM, certified hardware and drivers, decently calibrated displays and stop moaning like kids. There is absolutely no reason to be upset or sad and moan about the 16GB. This is just all based on a wrong point of view, which in my opinion just reflects their unprofessionalism.

To support AMD a bit:
https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?361113-Mr-Snippy&p=2807116&viewfull=1#post2807116

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Indigo-4-Beta-Graphics-Over-CL

Well said and the one in blenderartist looks awesome. Thanks for sharing!

 

[GCMD]

Thanks X and Wild...ordering 2.7GHz / 455 / 512GB MBP based on your recommendation...

 

[Patrick-Photo]

For what it's worth:

I opened up my 30k photo catalog (24mp X-T2 files at 40-50mb each) and zipped through it without slowing down only until my external drive couldn't keep up. Editting was way way waaay smoother than on my late 2011 ( 2.2 i7QC 16gb ram, 256ssd and Radeon 6750).

Tried bootcamp with Battlefield 4 at 2880x1800 (native). At 50% resolution scale and around medium settings I was getting 60fps. This looked better than 1080p 100% scale.

In short: I'm more than happy with my Radeon Pro 460 .

 

[Manrico1]

For what it's worth:

I opened up my 30k photo catalog (24mp X-T2 files at 40-50mb each) and zipped through it without slowing down only until my external drive couldn't keep up. Editting was way way waaay smoother than on my late 2011 ( 2.2 i7QC 16gb ram, 256ssd and Radeon 6750).

Tried bootcamp with Battlefield 4 at 2880x1800 (native). At 50% resolution scale and around medium settings I was getting 60fps. This looked better than 1080p 100% scale.

In short: I'm more than happy with my Radeon Pro 460 .

Are you using Lightroom for your photo editing?

 

[SimeoneSergio]

I started as a kid with Povray+Moray, used 3d Studio R4 DOS by Kinetix, used Alias PowerAnimator and Alias|Wavefront Maya 1.0 by SGI, Softimage|3D when it was owned by Microsoft, etc.
As you can see I have a long and old history of 3D Software usage, and most time it was at a professional "paid" level, so let me counter a bit.

How interesting, finally i've found someone as old as me. I'm one of those who trashed 3DMax 1.1 (i started with R4 too heh) for Power Animator (or Alias Studio if you prefer) as lotsa design studios in Milan started to prefer surface modelers over solid object modelers (like Giovannoni/Bellini and many others). You're speaking with someone that did this stuff "paid" (i wonder why you used quotes though but this might derail the thread). I previously mentioned "Irix", that should have given you a glimpse of what kind of background i had.

Windows does not offer the best performance anymore, except for 3DStudioMax, because it exist only for Windows.
Big Studios like ILM,Pixar,etc. run a lot of different operating systems, but the key ones run "Linux" with Maya.

I was speaking just about OSX and Windows. If we have to take in the discussion -ALL- operative systems we both know that none of those 2 is worth to spend words on.

For 3D content creation, yes Nvidia was always #1, but not because of it's better hardware, because of its better driver support for Quadro Cards.
Remember: GeForce are Gaming Cards and this means, No overlay planes support, No quad buffered stereo, no hardware accelerated points and lines, No clip regions.
And yes often people keep choosing Nvidia, because historically they are used to choose it.
These days are more or less over, AMD hardware just works now, too.
Most 3D Software Packages work equally good with AMD.

I've run 3 times through my posts to see if i wrote anything wrong, but after having checked again i feel to point out i never wrote "GeForce". I wrote "nVidia". No need to point out anything else, really. You're speaking with someone that had the luck to have an Oxygen GMX (ye i saved that much money to have it) in his first pro workstation and later softmodded a couple of GeForce chips into Quadros to save money because hey, you know how easy it is to get paid.

Renderers like Indigo,LuxRender supports Cuda and OpenCL equally good.
I will use the MacBook Pro also for GPU rendering, and I'm looking forward to use it. 16GB RAM+4GB GFXRAM will suit my mobile needs nicely for many many tasks. Heavy duty stuff I simply previs on the 128GBRAM XEON machine near me.

I'm way too out of heavy 3d stuff since ages but i do wonder if it does happen to you, sometimes, to have well paid last second stuff (like a 6-7 seconds bumper/interstitial) to make AND render and you never use RenderRocket/TurboRender/RanchComputing/other.

Anyway, 32GB won't make a huge difference. And the ones who hopes to have a single Laptop System to master all their "professional" situations, are simply doing it wrong. Those Vfx,3D,Animators,Graders,Editors "prosumers and professionals" should better buy a decent workstation with plenty of RAM, certified hardware and drivers, decently calibrated displays and stop moaning like kids.
There is absolutely no reason to be upset or sad and moan about the 16GB. This is just all based on a wrong point of view, which in my opinion just reflects their unprofessionalism.

And here is where you should have given a professional opinion (and you didn't): 32Gb makes a huge difference in PR/AE and nVidia+Cuda as well over OpenCL.

It's like telling to a DJ that he still has to bring with himself those big, heavy luggages containing vinyl records rather than CDs in folders or guess what, a laptop.

Other than this, happy 2017 and enjoy your new laptop.

 

[Patrick-Photo]

Are you using Lightroom for your photo editing?

Most of the time yes, when I need to do more I open Photoshop CC. It's winter season here so hardly any weddings and familyportraits (weather is dreadful, rain and fog!) so haven't really pushed the machine at the moment .

 

[imm22]

I started as a kid with Povray+Moray, used 3d Studio R4 DOS by Kinetix, used Alias PowerAnimator and Alias|Wavefront Maya 1.0 by SGI, Softimage|3D when it was owned by Microsoft, etc.
As you can see I have a long and old history of 3D Software usage, and most time it was at a professional "paid" level, so let me counter a bit.

Windows does not offer the best performance anymore, except for 3DStudioMax, because it exist only for Windows.
Big Studios like ILM,Pixar,etc. run a lot of different operating systems, but the key ones run "Linux" with Maya.

For 3D content creation, yes Nvidia was always #1, but not because of it's better hardware, because of its better driver support for Quadro Cards.

Remember: GeForce are Gaming Cards and this means, No overlay planes support, No quad buffered stereo, no hardware accelerated points and lines, No clip regions.

And yes often people keep choosing Nvidia, because historically they are used to choose it.
These days are more or less over, AMD hardware just works now, too.
Most 3D Software Packages work equally good with AMD.

Renderers like Indigo,LuxRender supports Cuda and OpenCL equally good.

I will use the MacBook Pro also for GPU rendering, and I'm looking forward to use it. 16GB RAM+4GB GFXRAM will suit my mobile needs nicely for many many tasks. Heavy duty stuff I simply previs on the 128GBRAM XEON machine near me.

Anyway, 32GB won't make a huge difference. And the ones who hopes to have a single Laptop System to master all their "professional" situations, are simply doing it wrong. Those Vfx,3D,Animators,Graders,Editors "prosumers and professionals" should better buy a decent workstation with plenty of RAM, certified hardware and drivers, decently calibrated displays and stop moaning like kids. There is absolutely no reason to be upset or sad and moan about the 16GB. This is just all based on a wrong point of view, which in my opinion just reflects their unprofessionalism.

To support AMD a bit:
https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?361113-Mr-Snippy&p=2807116&viewfull=1#post2807116

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Indigo-4-Beta-Graphics-Over-CL

The problem I see with the shift changing from gaming GPU to the PRO (enterprise) variant, is that in the case of this AMD RADON PRO (in my case the 460 version), there is no Enterprise support on BootCamp. The drivers on Windows are "normal" Radeon drivers, and that's a bummer. I use 3D CAD software, like 3DS MAX, Solidworks and others, and can't benefit of the current GPU, it's just like a gaming card.

I was very please to see the shift to Pro graphic cards (in this case a rebranded AMD FirePro mobile), but the lack of support of AMD and Apple on Windows really disappoints. It's short sighted for both companies, not to support at a Professional level this graphic cards! The MacBook could be a slick mobile workstation, that's true for macOS,but for windows, at this time we have to rely on things like the levono Thinkpad P50 or P70, HP zbook line, etc. ...

 

[wheelhot]

I was very please to see the shift to Pro graphic cards (in this case a rebranded AMD FirePro mobile), but the lack of support of AMD and Apple on Windows really disappoints. It's short sighted for both companies, not to support at a Professional level this graphic cards! The MacBook could be a slick mobile workstation, that's true for macOS,but for windows, at this time we have to rely on things like the levono Thinkpad P50 or P70, HP zbook line, etc. ...

And I thought AMD latest move in revamping the pro GPUs will mean support for Macs as well.

 

[imm22]

And I thought AMD latest move in revamping the pro GPUs will mean support for Macs as well.

The support on macOS is there. I can render with Cinema 4D using the GPU rendered has expected on a AMD FirePro. The problem is Windows.
It is responsibility of AMD to deliver drivers for windows, not apple.

 

[wheelhot]

The support on macOS is there. I can render with Cinema 4D using the GPU rendered has expected on a AMD FirePro. The problem is Windows.
It is responsibility of AMD to deliver drivers for windows, not apple.

Aah, so I guess the Radeon Pros will be exclusive for MBPs then, similar to the FirePros D-series.

Have you checked these? http://www.bootcampdrivers.com

 

[imm22]

Aah, so I guess the Radeon Pros will be exclusive for MBPs then, similar to the FirePros D-series.

Have you checked these? http://www.bootcampdrivers.com

Yep. Normal Radeon drivers...
I've already completed contacted the guy, but it seems that's not easy to port the enterprise driver ...

 

[keviig]

Has anyone been able to compare the power consumption, temperature and fan noise of the 450 and the 460?

 

[ourcore]

I'm also trying to decide between a 455 and 460, mainly because a MacBook with a 460 would be available in a month from now. I plan on using an external 4k monitor (27UD88), editing some video (possibly, 4k, but nothing intense or regular), and playing some games, such as CS:GO. Would the 455 suffice or should I really wait for the 460? Thanks!

 

[wheelhot]

I'm also trying to decide between a 455 and 460, mainly because a MacBook with a 460 would be available in a month from now. I plan on using an external 4k monitor (27UD88), editing some video (possibly, 4k, but nothing intense or regular), and playing some games, such as CS:GO. Would the 455 suffice or should I really wait for the 460? Thanks!

If you don't mind waiting and spending extra. Why not, the 460 is a faster card then 455.

I just tried playing Dota2 for Mac on my MBP (no external display) at full settings with the 460, and there's no lag or anything. I didn't know what FPS I'm at but it was very smooth, I had my cousin who's a gamer complimenting at how smooth the game was at max setting.

 

[kooky]

If I want to connect 2x 5K displays (LG UltraFine) does it make any difference whether 450,455,460?

I had read that the 5K displays uses the AMD chips, so, I thought there may be some advantage, but, there's no info on this.

 

[richinaus]

I started as a kid with Povray+Moray, used 3d Studio R4 DOS by Kinetix, used Alias PowerAnimator and Alias|Wavefront Maya 1.0 by SGI, Softimage|3D when it was owned by Microsoft, etc.
As you can see I have a long and old history of 3D Software usage, and most time it was at a professional "paid" level, so let me counter a bit.

Windows does not offer the best performance anymore, except for 3DStudioMax, because it exist only for Windows.
Big Studios like ILM,Pixar,etc. run a lot of different operating systems, but the key ones run "Linux" with Maya.

For 3D content creation, yes Nvidia was always #1, but not because of it's better hardware, because of its better driver support for Quadro Cards.

Remember: GeForce are Gaming Cards and this means, No overlay planes support, No quad buffered stereo, no hardware accelerated points and lines, No clip regions.

And yes often people keep choosing Nvidia, because historically they are used to choose it.
These days are more or less over, AMD hardware just works now, too.
Most 3D Software Packages work equally good with AMD.

Renderers like Indigo,LuxRender supports Cuda and OpenCL equally good.

I will use the MacBook Pro also for GPU rendering, and I'm looking forward to use it. 16GB RAM+4GB GFXRAM will suit my mobile needs nicely for many many tasks. Heavy duty stuff I simply previs on the 128GBRAM XEON machine near me.

Anyway, 32GB won't make a huge difference. And the ones who hopes to have a single Laptop System to master all their "professional" situations, are simply doing it wrong. Those Vfx,3D,Animators,Graders,Editors "prosumers and professionals" should better buy a decent workstation with plenty of RAM, certified hardware and drivers, decently calibrated displays and stop moaning like kids. There is absolutely no reason to be upset or sad and moan about the 16GB. This is just all based on a wrong point of view, which in my opinion just reflects their unprofessionalism.

To support AMD a bit:
https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?361113-Mr-Snippy&p=2807116&viewfull=1#post2807116

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Indigo-4-Beta-Graphics-Over-CL

Great post thanks !

You are exactly right with your last paragraph and I agree. There is no one machine solution and a professional in the graphics / CAD / 3D world should realise this. I will have the same setup, desktop and laptop, with the desktop for the heavy work [would like a Mac Pro but probably end up with a maxed iMac]. I am not as full on as your needs and don't need to do a lot of rendering but when I do, I want something capable of delivering quickly and not overheating with the fans blasting out.

 

[NovemberWhiskey]

Has anyone been able to compare the power consumption, temperature and fan noise of the 450 and the 460?

I don't have quantitative tests, but I can tell you the 450 runs dead cool. I have not heard the fans turn on once. I have not felt ANY heat from it at all. I was pretty shocked coming from a 2009 MacBook Pro.

While the 460 runs from slightly warmer, to warm. Battery life seems to be slightly shorter. Have not felt it get hot. At best, warm. I have heard the fans turn on. Not very loud from normal use, but if you hold your ear to the intake vents, you can hear them. Cannot hear anything from the 450.

 

[Marshall73]

I don't have quantitative tests, but I can tell you the 450 runs dead cool. I have not heard the fans turn on once. I have not felt ANY heat from it at all. I was pretty shocked coming from a 2009 MacBook Pro.

While the 460 runs from slightly warmer, to warm. Battery life seems to be slightly shorter. Have not felt it get hot. At best, warm. I have heard the fans turn on. Not very loud from normal use, but if you hold your ear to the intake vents, you can hear them. Cannot hear anything from the 450.

To get the fans fired up run windows 10 in a VM and play world of warcraft at the same time on the Mac. Gets toastie but not as hot as the old pro's.

 

[tbobmccoy]

I don't have quantitative tests, but I can tell you the 450 runs dead cool. I have not heard the fans turn on once. I have not felt ANY heat from it at all. I was pretty shocked coming from a 2009 MacBook Pro.

While the 460 runs from slightly warmer, to warm. Battery life seems to be slightly shorter. Have not felt it get hot. At best, warm. I have heard the fans turn on. Not very loud from normal use, but if you hold your ear to the intake vents, you can hear them. Cannot hear anything from the 450.

I love my 2016 MBP compared to my 2009 version. This thing is SO much cooler. Automatic graphics switching also makes me smile, though that's an old feature I suppose.

 

[Rasta4i]

I'm looking at doing a lot of 4K video editing, will there be a worthwhile noticeable difference between 450 and 460? I'm a beginner to video editing so I don't want to spend much more than I'll need yet

 

[Sanpete]

I'm looking at doing a lot of 4K video editing, will there be a worthwhile noticeable difference between 450 and 460? I'm a beginner to video editing so I don't want to spend much more than I'll need yet

Yeah, for some things there should be. The 460 is about 25% faster, so that will show up in tasks that are dGPU heavy.