This has to be the year all Pros get a quad core and a good GPU right?

[Queen6]

I'm surprised there's so much bitterness in this forum. Does really nobody here see a huge change in the advancements of eGPUs? An external GTX 1080 Ti is going to be far more powerful than anything Apple could reasonably fit into a notebook. And a well done enclosure does not only connect an eGPU, it also does charge the MacBook Pro, and it potentially adds ports or even hard drive bays. It doesn't get more comfortable than simply plugging in a single cable to do all these things at once.

I agree it's all "golden" until you need the performance on the go, then it all rather falls apart. Arguably a desktop solution would serve even better, equally problematic to travel with.

On the Windows side were now seeing very portable notebooks with high power GPU's, full port selections including USB C/TB-3. eGPU's made for good sense when there was a massive disparity between desktop & mobile solutions, in 2018 not so much. A GTX 1080 will always outperform it's mobile counterpart, equally even a GTX 1080 MaxQ will decimate any Mac.

Anybody here think these are unusually large or heavy notebook's? One can argue the spec & aesthetic all day long, equally this is just one example of many, with some having stronger internals and better displays. Bottom line is such notebooks are offering greater utility and less compromise, meanwhile at Apple the team is busy working on stripping ever more features and boosting margins.

Major thing to take away is; no dongles, no adaptors (certainly fewer), no eGPU required, just solid performing notebooks that are also scalable, and absolutely portable, but they don't look as nice...

Q-6

 

[Poki]

I agree it's all "golden" until you need the performance on the go, then it all rather falls apart. Arguably a desktop solution would serve even better, equally problematic to travel with.

On the Windows side were now seeing very portable notebooks with high power GPU's, full port selections including USB C/TB-3. eGPU's made for good sense when there was a massive disparity between desktop & mobile solutions, in 2018 not so much. A GTX 1080 will always outperform it's mobile counterpart, equally even a GTX 1080 MaxQ will decimate any Mac.

Anybody here think these are unusually large or heavy notebook's? One can argue the spec & aesthetic all day long, equally this is just one example of many, with some having stronger internals and better displays. Bottom line is such notebooks are offering greater utility and less compromise, meanwhile at Apple the team is busy working on stripping ever more features and boosting margins.

Major thing to take away is; no dongles, no adaptors (certainly fewer), no eGPU required, just solid performing notebooks that are also scalable, and absolutely portable, but they don't look as nice...

Q-6

While these notebooks are indeed not very bulky, they are closer to the pre-retina 15 inch MacBook Pro rather than the current 15 inch MBPs, so yes, they are a lot bulkier than Apple's offering.

Of course use cases are as different as the people using notebooks, but I think there's a strong case for Apple's way to do things too. A lot of people prefer a more portable solution with still enough power to work on the go, while doing the heavy render work when at home or at the office, connected to an eGPU, because doing something like rendering detailed 3D objects would reduce the battery life to mere minutes anyway.

I do understand that some people want one device with all its power on the go, but that's a different category of notebook. Should Apple offer a bulkier, more powerful notebook? Sure, more options are always great. But that's a niche market compared to the MacBook and MacBook Pro, so it might take a while until they do.

 

[Queen6]

While these notebooks are indeed not very bulky, they are closer to the pre-retina 15 inch MacBook Pro rather than the current 15 inch MBPs, so yes, they are a lot bulkier than Apple's offering.

Of course use cases are as different as the people using notebooks, but I think there's a strong case for Apple's way to do things too. A lot of people prefer a more portable solution with still enough power to work on the go, while doing the heavy render work when at home or at the office, connected to an eGPU, because doing something like rendering detailed 3D objects would reduce the battery life to mere minutes anyway.

I do understand that some people want one device with all its power on the go, but that's a different category of notebook. Should Apple offer a bulkier, more powerful notebook? Sure, more options are always great. But that's a niche market compared to the MacBook and MacBook Pro, so it might take a while until they do.

Apple's eggs are all in one basket these days, the primary focus being thinner devices, at a cost with features & performance taking the brunt. MBP remains to be a nice portable, equally less usable and arguably less performant in the face of the competition.

Truthfully the argument regarding battery life is moot A. Apple already drawn it's line in the sand by reducing battery capacity for a thinner chassis and B. if your working at this level mains power is a must, and last time I looked fairly ubiquitous

As ever with Apple "it is what it is"

Q-6

 

[Falhófnir]

Nah, probably a good couple of years before Apple will feign to spare some of their A10 stock for the Mac line

 

[Poki]

Apple's eggs are all in one basket these days, the primary focus being thinner devices, at a cost with features & performance taking the brunt. MBP remains to be a nice portable, equally less usable and arguably less performant in the face of the competition.

Truthfully the argument regarding battery life is moot A. Apple already drawn it's line in the sand by reducing battery capacity for a thinner chassis and B. if your working at this level mains power is a must, and last time I looked fairly ubiquitous

As ever with Apple "it is what it is"

Q-6

I still think Apple stroke gold with the combination of parts in the current MacBook Pro. The CPU and SSD performance is great, and the GPU performance is more than competitive (the 13" MBP, after all, has almost twice the GPU performance of the XPS 13 or similar notebooks). And they managed this, in combination with the most flexible, highest bandwith ports, a great screen, a (subjecitvely) great keyboard and trackpad, in a package that's very small and light - perfect for a truly mobile computing experience.

Looking at the sales numbers, I'm quite confident Apple also made the right choices financially.

Like I said, I do understand that you want a more powerful notebook. But most probably, you're in the minority here. A ton of users simply do not need more than the already great performance of the current MacBook Pro. And that's fine. Why should they be forced to lug a heavier, more expensive notebook around?

 

[Queen6]

I still think Apple stroke gold with the combination of parts in the current MacBook Pro. The CPU and SSD performance is great, and the GPU performance is more than competitive (the 13" MBP, after all, has almost twice the GPU performance of the XPS 13 or similar notebooks). And they managed this, in combination with the most flexible, highest bandwith ports, a great screen, a (subjecitvely) great keyboard and trackpad, in a package that's very small and light - perfect for a truly mobile computing experience.

Looking at the sales numbers, I'm quite confident Apple also made the right choices financially.

Like I said, I do understand that you want a more powerful notebook. But most probably, you're in the minority here. A ton of users simply do not need more than the already great performance of the current MacBook Pro. And that's fine. Why should they be forced to lug a heavier, more expensive notebook around?

I get what your saying, nor would I want Apple completely switch direction, equally such an "option" would serve many Pro's. After all Apple keeps promising to deliver to it's professional audience, equally I just see this now as sales and marketing in combination with the negativity in the tech press (Mac Pro). Same criticality simply doesn't exist for the notebook space as Apple is clearly selling the MBP to it's target audience.

It is a fact that many are switching, as the performance simply isn't there on the platform outside of a desktop solution. There's also other aspect, however at end of the day same as Apple it all comes down to the $$$$$$.

Q-6

 

[Fishrrman]

"This has to be the year all Pros get a quad core and a good GPU right?"

Don't bet the farm on it.

 

[_Kiki_]

I have no idea?! I presume eGPU’s will get boot camp support (if they haven’t) at some point, as with everything on Apples timescale.

Bootcamp drivers are terrible and Apple rarely updating them, in the last year I tried connect TB3 enclosure with GPU to my MacBook Pro 15 2016, but this solution didn't work

 

[scaramoosh]

You don’t need an external GPU, anything other than intel intergrated graphics will do. I mean the mx150 owns the intel iris in MacBook pros, you’ll see the intel play a game at 28fps and mx150 hit 60. Ryzen 2500 GPU almost gets to the mx150 level too...


Just something other than nothing, I’m not going to buy another MacBook until Apple start competing. It isn’t even about power, cooling or size either. Windows Laptops do it and are often smaller than the MacBook Pro.

The problem I have though is Windows 10 sucks, so I want to use OSX.

 

[Poki]

You don’t need an external GPU, anything other than intel intergrated graphics will do. I mean the mx150 owns the intel iris in MacBook pros, you’ll see the intel play a game at 28fps and mx150 hit 60. Ryzen 2500 GPU almost gets to the mx150 level too...

Games are just about the only thing the MX150 beats the Iris Plus by a wide margin. Like I already stated, the 10W MX150 is actually slower than the Iris, while the 25W MX150 is faster by about 20% - definitely not enough to warrant a doubling of the TDP. Gaming is not the focus of the MacBook Pro, so Apple won't care too much whether the gaming performance is great, as long as the GPU performs well in GPU accelerated workflows like RAW photo editing, Photoshop filters or rendering 4k videos.

 

[Merode]

Games are just about the only thing the MX150 beats the Iris Plus by a wide margin. Like I already stated, the 10W MX150 is actually slower than the Iris, while the 25W MX150 is faster by about 20% - definitely not enough to warrant a doubling of the TDP. Gaming is not the focus of the MacBook Pro, so Apple won't care too much whether the gaming performance is great, as long as the GPU performs well in GPU accelerated workflows like RAW photo editing, Photoshop filters or rendering 4k videos.

MX150 has two variants. One is 39% percent faster than Iris Plus 650, and the other 15%. That's a lot, however I'd like to see any benchmark in which Iris Plus 650 beats any variant of MX150 at anything. I'll be waiting.

Here are some real, user submitted benchmarks: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...is-Plus-650-Mobile-Kaby-Lake/m332822vsm367939

 

[Poki]

MX150 has two variants. One is 39% percent faster than Iris Plus 650, and the other 15%. That's a lot, however I'd like to see any benchmark in which Iris Plus 650 beats any variant of MX150 at anything. I'll be waiting.

Here are some real, user submitted benchmarks: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...is-Plus-650-Mobile-Kaby-Lake/m332822vsm367939

Even in the benchmarks you linked to, the Iris Plus beats the 10W MX150 in the Splatting performance benchmark.

It's also faster in Luxmark, even compared to the 25W MX150.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/GeFor...vs-GeForce-MX130_8000_7655_8132.247598.0.html

I'm not able to find any benchmarks purely based on GPU acceleration instead of rendering 3D engines, so the numbers I quoted were the pure floating point performance, which is 797 GFLOPs (10W MX150) vs. 883 GFLOPs (Iris Plus 650) vs. 1127 GFLOPs (25W MX150). This makes the 25W MX150 roughly 27% faster, but it also makes the 10W MX150 roughly 10% slower than the Iris Plus 650. I expect productivity apps, such as Final Cut Pro X, to be close to these numbers. Would love to see real world benchmarks too though.

Sources:
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2984/geforce-mx150
https://technical.city/en/video/Iris-Plus-Graphics-650
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2959/geforce-mx150

 

[Merode]

Even in the benchmarks you linked to, the Iris Plus beats the 10W MX150 in the Splatting performance benchmark.

It's also faster in Luxmark, even compared to the 25W MX150.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/GeFor...vs-GeForce-MX130_8000_7655_8132.247598.0.html

On the same page, it is 23% slower in other Luxmark bench. I'm not familiar with Luxmark, but I presume it doesn't bode well for Iris Plus 650. The bench it is better at, it's only by 5%.

I'm not able to find any benchmarks purely based on GPU acceleration instead of rendering 3D engines, so the numbers I quoted were the pure floating point performance, which is 797 GFLOPs (10W MX150) vs. 883 GFLOPs (Iris Plus 650) vs. 1127 GFLOPs (25W MX150). This makes the 25W MX150 roughly 27% faster, but it also makes the 10W MX150 roughly 10% slower than the Iris Plus 650. I expect productivity apps, such as Final Cut Pro X, to be close to these numbers. Would love to see real world benchmarks too though.

Pure GFLOPs don't translate directly to pure performance. If it did, my Iris Pro 580 (the most powerful Intel GPU ever released) with its ~1300GFLOPs would be almost on par with Xbox One. Well, it's far cry from Xbox One.

It's also worth pointing out that AMD GPUs with more GFLOPs are always on par with nVidia's GPUs with lower GFLOPs. That's because GPUs in general are pretty complicated devices with more than one parameter responsible for performance. That's why sites like UserBenchmark give most insight - those are user-performed benches with the same tool and amassed (eg. average from 1400 benches).

 

[Poki]

On the same page, it is 23% slower in other Luxmark bench. I'm not familiar with Luxmark, but I presume it doesn't bode well for Iris Plus 650. The bench it is better at, it's only by 5%.



Pure GFLOPs don't translate directly to pure performance. If it did, my Iris Pro 580 (the most powerful Intel GPU ever released) with its ~1300GFLOPs would be almost on par with Xbox One. Well, it's far cry from Xbox One.

It's also worth pointing out that AMD GPUs with more GFLOPs are always on par with nVidia's GPUs with lower GFLOPs. That's because GPUs in general are pretty complicated devices with more than one parameter responsible for performance. That's why sites like UserBenchmark give most insight - those are user-performed benches with the same tool and amassed (eg. average from 1400 benches).

XBOX One does have a vastly different memory architecture with its 8 GB of GDDR5 VRAM. That's also the biggest drawback of Intel's GPUs compared to dedicated ones - the complete lack of VRAM. I'm pretty sure that this does make the Iris does make the Iris look worse compared to dedicated GPUs in gaming tests, since games absolutely need the fastest possible memory bandwith. With more compute heavy, but less memory demanding workflows, the Iris should be much closer. In the end, yes, the MX150 would be faster, but I still don't think it would be worth the investment in additional cooling and thous the smaller space for batteries.

 

[tomscott1988]

I dont buy the eGPU sell.

A. The enclosures are £500
B. The GPU's for £599+

Its not what your average user will do, its so niche its ridiculous to comment and advice thats what people should do. The product should perform well out the box.

Same old BS spend £1100 for a GPU that will perform at 80% the speed of a PCI GC. Its all well and good selling apples apparent mantra, but apple dont offer an OEM solution so its pretty much a complete moot point. All they have done is say "these" products best fit on many occasions people have had nothing but problems.

For the price £2400 for a 13" Macbook pro with a dual core CPU 16gbs ram and an integrated GPU is frankly insane.

Its time they got dedicated graphics. The whole lineup under 15" is a complete joke and rip off. Full of compromise, lack of performance and reliability.

For an extra £200 the 15" is a steal in comparison as you get the quad, 16gbs ram and a dedicated GPU. Plus the extra screen real estate and in all honesty its footprint is impressive.

Its the same with the iMac you shouldn't have to spend £1100 extra to use a Nvidia graphics card. Worse still the drivers are so bad that spending that money will give you no added performance. Especially when the bloody things cant cool themselves.

Apple are out of the software game apart from Logic and FCP for anyone who does any intensive creative work you need cuda. Frankly CC works poorly on the mac, the only machine it works well on is the iMac pro and even then many programs arent a smooth experience.

If they are serious about pushing this lack lustre tech they need to offer a reason for people to use it. 10 years ago the story was different it was all about what the mac offered over the comp, now its full of bugs they have dropped support for a lot of their own software and basically left it out to dry.

The lack of product updates sum it up.

CC not being great isnt apples fault its adobe but at the end of the day if professionals are leaving the mac ecosystem then why bother changing the architecture to fit. Apple are digging themselves a hole with the lack of a serious offering for the last 7-8 years.

The fact is with most programs being cloud based and multi platform offering the same experience there is little reason to have any sort of allegiance to an OS.

With what the competition are doing the macbook pro is getting lost, the MBP has literally the same use case it did 10 years ago when the unibody was announced. Nothing has changed except its got less ports, 30-40% more expensive, lost the dvd drive and any sort of upgradability. That and the reliability has gone down the pan. It may be thin but its not what it once was. The fact its so stagnant with no innovation at all worth talking about. Is the touchbar really the best they can do.

Its a joke, all the base mbp come with 8gbs soldiered to the board and all the BTO options are all that third parties sell. Its not like back in the day where you could upgrade them down the line in 3-4 years they will be nothing but paper weights to anyone but low power users. There will be no speeding them up with new drive technologies etc

The old mac last longer wont be the case any more. Ive had 8gbs of ram in my portables since my 2008 unibody macbook... yet we are no further on. In 10 years 8gbs wont be useful, its already not enough just with the system, itunes a browser and some content.

The whole mac lineup is in a sad state of repair. The only shining light is the iMac pro.

Even that is a joke because its the only decent machine they have put out in years and the entry is so high it is basically like "weve solved all your problems but youll have to pay 5k to get it mwwwaaahhhhaaahhhaaa"

The humorous thing is the iMac pro is the best mac they make and its a parts bin special. Apple are beyond taking the pi$$ these days.

 

[Queen6]

I dont buy the eGPU sell.

A. The enclosures are £500
B. The GPU's for £599+

Its not what your average user will do, its so niche its ridiculous to comment and advice thats what people should do. The product should perform well out the box.

Same old BS spend £1100 for a GPU that will perform at 80% the speed of a PCI GC. Its all well and good selling apples apparent mantra, but apple dont offer an OEM solution so its pretty much a complete moot point. All they have done is say "these" products best fit on many occasions people have had nothing but problems.

For the price £2400 for a 13" Macbook pro with a dual core CPU 16gbs ram and an integrated GPU is frankly insane.

Its time they got dedicated graphics. The whole lineup under 15" is a complete joke and rip off. Full of compromise, lack of performance and reliability.

For an extra £200 the 15" is a steal in comparison as you get the quad, 16gbs ram and a dedicated GPU. Plus the extra screen real estate and in all honesty its footprint is impressive.

Its the same with the iMac you shouldn't have to spend £1100 extra to use a Nvidia graphics card. Worse still the drivers are so bad that spending that money will give you no added performance. Especially when the bloody things cant cool themselves.

Apple are out of the software game apart from Logic and FCP for anyone who does any intensive creative work you need cuda. Frankly CC works poorly on the mac, the only machine it works well on is the iMac pro and even then many programs arent a smooth experience.

If they are serious about pushing this lack lustre tech they need to offer a reason for people to use it. 10 years ago the story was different it was all about what the mac offered over the comp, now its full of bugs they have dropped support for a lot of their own software and basically left it out to dry.

The lack of product updates sum it up.

CC not being great isnt apples fault its adobe but at the end of the day if professionals are leaving the mac ecosystem then why bother changing the architecture to fit. Apple are digging themselves a hole with the lack of a serious offering for the last 7-8 years.

The fact is with most programs being cloud based and multi platform offering the same experience there is little reason to have any sort of allegiance to an OS.

With what the competition are doing the macbook pro is getting lost, the MBP has literally the same use case it did 10 years ago when the unibody was announced. Nothing has changed except its got less ports, 30-40% more expensive, lost the dvd drive and any sort of upgradability. That and the reliability has gone down the pan. It may be thin but its not what it once was. The fact its so stagnant with no innovation at all worth talking about. Is the touchbar really the best they can do.

Its a joke, all the base mbp come with 8gbs soldiered to the board and all the BTO options are all that third parties sell. Its not like back in the day where you could upgrade them down the line in 3-4 years they will be nothing but paper weights to anyone but low power users. There will be no speeding them up with new drive technologies etc

The old mac last longer wont be the case any more. Ive had 8gbs of ram in my portables since my 2008 unibody macbook... yet we are no further on. In 10 years 8gbs wont be useful, its already not enough just with the system, itunes a browser and some content.

The whole mac lineup is in a sad state of repair. The only shining light is the iMac pro.

Even that is a joke because its the only decent machine they have put out in years and the entry is so high it is basically like "weve solved all your problems but youll have to pay 5k to get it mwwwaaahhhhaaahhhaaa"

The humorous thing is the iMac pro is the best mac they make and its a parts bin special. Apple are beyond taking the pi$$ these days.

I couldn't agree more...

Q-6

 

[han_del_]

so yes, they are a lot bulkier than Apple's offering...Should Apple offer a bulkier, more powerful notebook? Sure, more options are always great. But that's a niche market

Like I said, I do understand that you want a more powerful notebook. But most probably, you're in the minority here. A ton of users simply do not need more than the already great performance of the current MacBook Pro. And that's fine. Why should they be forced to lug a heavier, more expensive notebook around?

Heavy workload pros have a point as far as their own needs go, but I think most people appreciate that Apple is making its notebooks smaller, thinner, and lighter. I'd like if they could make em even lighter.

Gaming is not the focus of the MacBook Pro

Gaming laptops might be going the way of the dinosaur with streaming.

 

[Altis]

Heavy workload pros have a point as far as their own needs go, but I think most people appreciate that Apple is making its notebooks smaller, thinner, and lighter. I'd like if they could make em even lighter.

If only one of the biggest tech giants in the world could make two different models depending on users needs. They could even call the more bigger, more powerful ones their "Pro" lineup, and give the thinner, lighter ones something like the "Air."

Gaming laptops might be going the way of the dinosaur with streaming.

60 Hz with 30ms input lag would make certain games unplayable, especially at a high level.

Cool concept, though.

The cloud-computing concept could make it so people no longer have to upgrade computers since all they need to do is relay the connection. Maybe we'll all just have Raspberry Pis that connect us to more powerful cloud computers.

 

[han_del_]

60 Hz with 30ms input lag would make certain games unplayable, especially at a high level.

Cool concept, though.

The cloud-computing concept could make it so people no longer have to upgrade computers since all they need to do is relay the connection. Maybe we'll all just have Raspberry Pis that connect us to more powerful cloud computers.

Then there's this:

 

[macjunk(ie)]

Then there's this:

'This' costs 450$! (in addition to the MBP)

 

[Samuelsan2001]

'This' costs 450$! (in addition to the MBP)

It does but if you need a slim light portable laptop and a graphics powerhouse desktop then this is still a cheaper option than buying both.

 

[Acronyc]

I dont buy the eGPU sell.

A. The enclosures are £500
B. The GPU's for £599+

Its not what your average user will do, its so niche its ridiculous to comment and advice thats what people should do. The product should perform well out the box.

Same old BS spend £1100 for a GPU that will perform at 80% the speed of a PCI GC. Its all well and good selling apples apparent mantra, but apple dont offer an OEM solution so its pretty much a complete moot point. All they have done is say "these" products best fit on many occasions people have had nothing but problems.

For the price £2400 for a 13" Macbook pro with a dual core CPU 16gbs ram and an integrated GPU is frankly insane.

Its time they got dedicated graphics. The whole lineup under 15" is a complete joke and rip off. Full of compromise, lack of performance and reliability.

For an extra £200 the 15" is a steal in comparison as you get the quad, 16gbs ram and a dedicated GPU. Plus the extra screen real estate and in all honesty its footprint is impressive.

Its the same with the iMac you shouldn't have to spend £1100 extra to use a Nvidia graphics card. Worse still the drivers are so bad that spending that money will give you no added performance. Especially when the bloody things cant cool themselves.

Apple are out of the software game apart from Logic and FCP for anyone who does any intensive creative work you need cuda. Frankly CC works poorly on the mac, the only machine it works well on is the iMac pro and even then many programs arent a smooth experience.

If they are serious about pushing this lack lustre tech they need to offer a reason for people to use it. 10 years ago the story was different it was all about what the mac offered over the comp, now its full of bugs they have dropped support for a lot of their own software and basically left it out to dry.

The lack of product updates sum it up.

CC not being great isnt apples fault its adobe but at the end of the day if professionals are leaving the mac ecosystem then why bother changing the architecture to fit. Apple are digging themselves a hole with the lack of a serious offering for the last 7-8 years.

The fact is with most programs being cloud based and multi platform offering the same experience there is little reason to have any sort of allegiance to an OS.

With what the competition are doing the macbook pro is getting lost, the MBP has literally the same use case it did 10 years ago when the unibody was announced. Nothing has changed except its got less ports, 30-40% more expensive, lost the dvd drive and any sort of upgradability. That and the reliability has gone down the pan. It may be thin but its not what it once was. The fact its so stagnant with no innovation at all worth talking about. Is the touchbar really the best they can do.

Its a joke, all the base mbp come with 8gbs soldiered to the board and all the BTO options are all that third parties sell. Its not like back in the day where you could upgrade them down the line in 3-4 years they will be nothing but paper weights to anyone but low power users. There will be no speeding them up with new drive technologies etc

The old mac last longer wont be the case any more. Ive had 8gbs of ram in my portables since my 2008 unibody macbook... yet we are no further on. In 10 years 8gbs wont be useful, its already not enough just with the system, itunes a browser and some content.

The whole mac lineup is in a sad state of repair. The only shining light is the iMac pro.

Even that is a joke because its the only decent machine they have put out in years and the entry is so high it is basically like "weve solved all your problems but youll have to pay 5k to get it mwwwaaahhhhaaahhhaaa"

The humorous thing is the iMac pro is the best mac they make and its a parts bin special. Apple are beyond taking the pi$$ these days.

Those are some high prices you quoted for an eGPU enclosure plus GPU. I'm not sure where you are seeing these prices, but I bought Apple's DevKit last year for US$600 and change. That included the Sonnet enclosure and AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB GPU. I know that mining has increased the price of GPUs lately, but are TB3 enclosures really that expensive (US$700)?

I'm sure there are cheaper GPUs as well. My first eGPU build was an Akitio enclosure and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB for my mini. Even though it was a cheap card this setup massively improved performance.

I agree though that the eGPU is niche right now. It's not for everybody.

For me, though, I am running an eGPU setup with my 2016 nTB MBP and it is working great. The latest macOS update fixed a lot of the annoyances that were previously there (logging out required to connect/disconnect the eGPU or the eGPU not sleeping). The performance gain with the eGPU setup is awesome, especially for Macs without a DGPU. I have a light, easy to transport computer on the go and I can run just about any GPU intensive application at home without a problem.

 

[scaramoosh]

Games are just about the only thing the MX150 beats the Iris Plus by a wide margin. Like I already stated, the 10W MX150 is actually slower than the Iris, while the 25W MX150 is faster by about 20% - definitely not enough to warrant a doubling of the TDP. Gaming is not the focus of the MacBook Pro, so Apple won't care too much whether the gaming performance is great, as long as the GPU performs well in GPU accelerated workflows like RAW photo editing, Photoshop filters or rendering 4k videos.

They should start to care because gaming is what keeps Windows afloat and what sells the most on IOS.

 

[Poki]

They should start to care because gaming is what keeps Windows afloat and what sells the most on IOS.

Maybe you're right there. But who knows what Apple's market analysis says. Maybe they plan on launching their own eGPU package later this year and think about boosting sales of that thing? I don't know, there could be tons of reasons why they don't care too much.

 

[tomscott1988]

Those are some high prices you quoted for an eGPU enclosure plus GPU. I'm not sure where you are seeing these prices, but I bought Apple's DevKit last year for US$600 and change. That included the Sonnet enclosure and AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB GPU. I know that mining has increased the price of GPUs lately, but are TB3 enclosures really that expensive (US$700)?

I'm sure there are cheaper GPUs as well. My first eGPU build was an Akitio enclosure and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB for my mini. Even though it was a cheap card this setup massively improved performance.

I agree though that the eGPU is niche right now. It's not for everybody.

For me, though, I am running an eGPU setup with my 2016 nTB MBP and it is working great. The latest macOS update fixed a lot of the annoyances that were previously there (logging out required to connect/disconnect the eGPU or the eGPU not sleeping). The performance gain with the eGPU setup is awesome, especially for Macs without a DGPU. I have a light, easy to transport computer on the go and I can run just about any GPU intensive application at home without a problem.

Why would anyone spend so much money and put a mid range card in an EGPU. You can already spec 580s in mac anyway? Surely if your going to go for an EGPU you would buy a high end card not a mid range? Which is why they are niche i cant see a single reason any average user would buy an eGPU for a mac.

I was talking from a creatives point of view, CC generally - premier, after effects, lightroom etc Cuda works best and if the 580 is the best you can get on the iMac except the pro then a 1080TI would make sense but obviously the drivers are poor... anyway 1080TIs start at around £700 in the uk, if you want a Vega 64 graphics card then £649 is where they start.

So if your serious which you have to be to buy an external graphics card then I would say these are your go to, otherwise whats the point.

Also the only current supported eGPU boxes that I can find available is the

Sonnet Technologies GPU 650W which is £489 even the cheapest being the power colour devil box is £370.

Which ever way you look at it £1000-1300 is going to be the cost to get a decent GPU with the box then you take a 20% hit.

Stupid IMO.