Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 1060 6GiB is about as fast as 32 Polaris CUs on the desktop.

That means it would require at least 24 Vega CUs (3:4 ratio really against GCN3).

But on mobile there could be less of a clock difference.
Right, so we're looking at ~1050Ti levels for games, not amazing, but acceptable. But for compute, and anything GPU accelerated, it would probably do a fair bit better. Maybe similar to a 1060. That's pretty reasonable.
 
Yep they removed the tag in Australia, was there earlier today.
In our Hong Kong website, the production description page dropped any mention of date, while the online store BTO part still lists "New options coming late November".
 
Doubt it. If this was the case they would of changed it to coming December on the BTO pages.
 
Right, so we're looking at ~1050Ti levels for games, not amazing, but acceptable. But for compute, and anything GPU accelerated, it would probably do a fair bit better. Maybe similar to a 1060. That's pretty reasonable.
Kaby Lake G with 24 Vegaris CUs is faster than a 1050 Ti.
 
I think the reason it dropped is cos its delayed maybe December

No because the confit page still includes the Late November tag.
It’s only the product page that doesn’t mention anything at all, as if it was available right now.
 

Attachments

  • 4712F9D7-592C-4627-9E7F-643E9AEDC16A.png
    4712F9D7-592C-4627-9E7F-643E9AEDC16A.png
    251.9 KB · Views: 125
  • Like
Reactions: 0-0
What's everyone going to be ordering ? i7 or i9 and Vega 16 or 20 ? :)
 
They very well might. They showed Windows gaming in the trailer at least :)

I just realized that they have two options, Pro Vega 16 and Pro Vega 20 with 16 and 20 CU's respectively. For comparison, a 2200G APU has 8 CU, and Vega 56 has 56 CU's. That seems to suggest performance similar to the 560X, but that doesn't make sense. Maybe they can get to 1050Ti levels. Probably not 1060.
20 CUs is 1280 GCN cores, the same, as is in GTX 1060/Quadro P3000.
The GPU has 1.3 GHz core clock, less than GTX 1060, more than Quadro P3000. The GPU will be 20-25% faster than GTX 1050 Ti.
Right, so we're looking at ~1050Ti levels for games, not amazing, but acceptable. But for compute, and anything GPU accelerated, it would probably do a fair bit better. Maybe similar to a 1060. That's pretty reasonable.
Leaked 3dMark scores for Radeon Pro 20 suggest it is 64% faster than Radeon Pro 560X - which puts it slightly below GTX 1060 Max-Q.
 
  • Like
Reactions: idck_cn
What's everyone going to be ordering ? i7 or i9 and Vega 16 or 20 ? :)
If I could have it in the 13" I would seriously consider it. But that's not happening, so I'm staying put. I have enough Vegas in other boxes.
[doublepost=1542200621][/doublepost]
20 CUs is 1280 GCN cores, the same, as is in GTX 1060/Quadro P3000.
The GPU has 1.3 GHz core clock, less than GTX 1060, more than Quadro P3000. The GPU will be 20-25% faster than GTX 1050 Ti.

Leaked 3dMark scores for Radeon Pro 20 suggest it is 64% faster than Radeon Pro 560X - which puts it slightly below GTX 1060 Max-Q.
Well, let's hope you're right, and that I'm being overly conservative.
 
It doesn't have any issues, people simply have misplaced expectations for the CPU

The issue for me is price/performance difference (plus the downsides of having potentially a hotter, louder, less battery machine).

Although me and you may not have any misplaced expectations due to understanding the chassis/cooling limitations, what do you think the average consumer believes when they take the upgrade? I think that is also an issue!
 
Although me and you may not have any misplaced expectations due to understanding the chassis/cooling limitations, what do you think the average consumer believes when they take the upgrade? I think that is also an issue!

I think the real "problem" is not the performance of the i9, but the performance of i7 - that is, that the i7 CPU performs better than what it specs suggest. Funnily enough, this could have been avoided if Intel had placed a more strict clock limit on the multi-core boost. But they didn't and that effectively made the i9 less attractive.
 
I think the real "problem" is not the performance of the i9, but the performance of i7 - that is, that the i7 CPU performs better than what it specs suggest. Funnily enough, this could have been avoided if Intel had placed a more strict clock limit on the multi-core boost. But they didn't and that effectively made the i9 less attractive.

The i9 to me as an upgrade is the equivilant of paying £400 for extra 512GB SSD to find out only 300GB is usable ;).
 
  • Like
Reactions: leman
Order placed. i9 , 32GB RAM, Vega 20 .
[doublepost=1542210438][/doublepost]Looks like the press release was true ;) so much for late November Haha.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.