Real World Differences Between 455 and 460

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by rawweb, Jan 2, 2017.

  1. rawweb macrumors 6502a


    Aug 7, 2015
    Feels like I've been waiting and waiting for real world reviews of the new MacBook Pro 15", and still can't seem to find definitive results comparing the the 455 2GB and 460 4GB. I've found a lot of comparisons for previous generation, etc. I'd really love to see some BruceX export tests or something between the two cards. Does anyone know of a source that's compared the machines in this manner? Anyone own these machines that can weigh in? Not looking to discuss the typical complaints here.

    I'm thinking of picking up a 2.7GHz/455 15", and wouldn't mind saving 100 bucks to put towards some other accessories if the differences are pretty marginal. Also retail stock levels on that configuration seem to be maintained. If the differences are staggering, it would obviously be worth the wait. This would be replacing an iMac as my small kids have made me realize my starving need for mobility these days. I already have a OWC ThunderBay4 which houses my raid 0 array from my old dead Mac Pro.

    Primary use:

    - Running a small business
    - Video production
    - Mostly 1080, but I've had more and more 4k come up
    - FCPX
    - Adobe Premiere
    - After Effects (fairly light these days)
    - Graphic/Web design
    - Photoshop
    - Illustrator
    - Coding
    - Very very very (VERY!) light gaming in Windows. Primarily, Star Wars Battlefront.
    - Occasionally fire up my old 3DSMax 2012 (though most newer computers easily meet the requirements of that since the software is getting pretty long in the tooth.)
  2. shareef777 macrumors 68020


    Jul 26, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    There won't be any 'staggering' differences, marginal at best. If you're thinking about it, then just save the $100 and go with the 455.
  3. rawweb thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Aug 7, 2015
    Thanks, I'd love to see a couple of folks with matching processor configurations and the two different video cards throw some BruceX export numbers out. Not entirely scientific but it gives me a better more educated ball park guess. Based on your sig, looks like you've got the top of the line model all around? Are you seeing pretty good results with the 2.9?

    At work, I have a 2014 2.8/750M/16GB ram model and to me it's a pretty sluggish at some of the basic video tasks I throw at it. Especially compared to my work nMP and my 5k iMac at home. Just want to make sure I'm not making a bad call on this.
  4. precision01 macrumors member

    Oct 16, 2014
    In games, especially in bootcamp, the difference will be significant between pro 455 and pro 460:

    3dMark Firestrike (firestrike Score)

    AMD Radeon PRO 450: 3.027
    AMD Radeon PRO 455: 3.540 (+17%)
    AMD Radeon PRO 460: 4.616 (+52%)

    3dMark TimeSpy

    AMD Radeon PRO 455: 1.282
  5. rawweb thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Aug 7, 2015
    See, on paper with those numbers, it appears stupid not to pay and wait for the 460. Between the 455 and 460 it appears to me to be about a 26% increase, not 52%? I do usually find gaming benchmarks a bit difficult to translate into real world use. I'd love to see a BruceX test or some adobe benchmarks on barefeets or something comparing the cards similar to what you found. Frustrating that I can't seem to find exactly that.
  6. leman macrumors G3

    Oct 14, 2008
    From what I've seen so far, BruceX is mostly sensitive to VRAM size/bandwidth. Its hardly a realistic benchmark unless you want to work with very high resolutions.
  7. azpekt macrumors regular

    Jun 27, 2012
    hp, illinois
    both of them suck
    if you`re serious about video editing, pick up the cheapest one and go with eGPU
  8. precision01 macrumors member

    Oct 16, 2014
    You are right. For people who needs performance, 460 is the way to go. And about percentages, 460 is about 52% faster than 450 ;0)
    --- Post Merged, Jan 2, 2017 ---
    If mobility is absolutely necessary, you should go with the best dPGU, witch is 460 in 2016 macbook pros.
    If you really need a CUDA capable GPU, for GPU rendering or similar stuff, I agree you should go with a eGPU. I have a Akitio Thunder 2 PCI express box with a Geforce GTX 1050 TI. It works both on Windows and Mac, although on Mac you need more complex driver tweeking.

Share This Page