If anyone thinks that dual core macbook with mobile processor and low end polaris 11 will be enough to run Oculus or other VR applications is delusional. Oculus has what, 970 required? AMD chip of relevant performance would never fit into macbook due to power and heat constraints.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Waiting for Skylake MBP thread
- Thread starter adildacoolset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
If anyone thinks that dual core macbook with mobile processor and low end polaris 11 will be enough to run Oculus or other VR applications is delusional. Oculus has what, 970 required? AMD chip of relevant performance would never fit into macbook due to power and heat constraints.
Mac's are already powerful enough for VR. Source: I'm a Mac developer developing for VR.
Now, this is a fact that goes against the consensus: The Oculus founder said Mac's can't run VR. Surely he's not lying?
Well, here's a fact: the Oculus "able to run" requirements are not based on performance, but a preset list of GPU's (allright - partly valided and added because of their performance).
But my point is, that because the GPU's used in say, the hi-end iMacs or Mac Pro's are not in that list, the Oculus runtime will refuse to run. Even if the GPU can handle the game in 90Hz just fine. (I'll bet that if you used an older version of this runtime - you can't even run Oculus with Nvidia GTX 1080 - because it's not included in the list!)
That aside, more power will definitely help. Especially with experiences that go beyond trivial demos or basic experiences. The RX 480M will definitely be able to power a lot of VR experiences with good performance. In any case, I believe Valve will add Mac support first since it's more close to their interests (Steam Machines & Linux).
It's always funny to read posts about how Mac's can't run VR, when you have such a big push from Google and Samsung for VR on Android phones. Or do you think the Galaxy smartphone graphics chip is on par with GTX 970?
If you're interested in more about VR on Mac, you should sign up here: http://www.vrdesktop.com/
Last edited:
Did you miss polaris 11 reviews? In shortcut: no low power consumption, not very powerful.
[doublepost=1470938461][/doublepost]
Eh, don't hope for that, gpu in macbook will be probably underclocked version of rx460 (polaris 11) which is a disapointment card.
Don't listen to this guy. It works fine. You can watch videos of people using the OR on the 1080.
I received my Oculus Rift back in May and I thought it was ok. I ordered it for a development project that I was apart of. After seeing a colleagues Hololens developer's kit, I was super impressed. I hope that Microsoft can bring that down to a good price point. It's much more impressive than OR. Of course, it was $3k vs the $600 I spent for OR.
There are people who have the OR running under macOS. You can see videos on YouTube and various forums. The problem with any VR and macOS is Apple. Their drivers are terrible. Apple rarely updates their graphic drivers (or OpenGL for that matter) to the newer versions which kills performance under macOS.
Last edited:
Mac's are already powerful enough for VR. Source: I'm a Mac developer developing for VR.
Now, this is a fact that goes against the consensus: The Oculus founder said Mac's can't run VR. Surely he's not lying?
Well, here's a fact: the Oculus "able to run" requirements are not based on performance, but a preset list of GPU's (allright - partly valided and added because of their performance).
But my point is, that because the GPU's used in say, the hi-end iMacs or Mac Pro's are not in that list, the Oculus runtime will refuse to run. Even if the GPU can handle the game in 90Hz just fine. (I'll bet that if you used an older version of this runtime - you can't even run Oculus with Nvidia GTX 1080 - because it's not included in the list!)
That aside, more power will definitely help. Especially with experiences that go beyond trivial demos or basic experiences. The RX 480M will definitely be able to power a lot of VR experiences with good performance. In any case, I believe Valve will add Mac support first since it's more close to their interests (Steam Machines & Linux).
It's always funny to read posts about how Mac's can't run VR, when you have such a big push from Google and Samsung for VR on Android phones. Or do you think the Galaxy smartphone graphics chip is on par with GTX 970?
If you're interested in more about VR on Mac, you should sign up here: http://www.vrdesktop.com/
Different levels of VR, though. You aren't going to play Batman or Star Wars Battlefront VR on a Galaxy S6.
There's no way the 5K iMac is going to output 2160x1200 at 90FPS at any kind of decent settings on any recent title.
Sure, Macs could "run" Oculus VR if we are simply talking Minecraft.
AMD has said that their mobile gpu's for polaris will have the same names as their desktop counterparts. The whole 480M thing was just speculation before the AMD Polaris release. It is rumored that AMD is releasing a line of rebranded non-Polaris 4xxM gpu's though.
That means large notebooks (like dell precision, maybe Alienware) will probably get the mobile RX 480 (or FirePro equivalent) based on Polaris 10, which will probably operate at the MXM 3.0b standard power draw of 70-100w. Given how power hungry Polaris 10 can be I wouldn't be surprised if they are 100-125w though.
If the next mbp will be getting a polaris dgpu at all, it will likely be a mobile RX 460, based on Polaris 11/Baffin. A while back AMD said the mobile RX 460 would be 35 watt (much less than the horrendous m370x), but so far the desktop RX 460s have just been listed as "<75w". We will see if AMD can bring the power consumption down to 35w for mobile.
That means large notebooks (like dell precision, maybe Alienware) will probably get the mobile RX 480 (or FirePro equivalent) based on Polaris 10, which will probably operate at the MXM 3.0b standard power draw of 70-100w. Given how power hungry Polaris 10 can be I wouldn't be surprised if they are 100-125w though.
If the next mbp will be getting a polaris dgpu at all, it will likely be a mobile RX 460, based on Polaris 11/Baffin. A while back AMD said the mobile RX 460 would be 35 watt (much less than the horrendous m370x), but so far the desktop RX 460s have just been listed as "<75w". We will see if AMD can bring the power consumption down to 35w for mobile.
Different levels of VR, though. You aren't going to play Batman or Star Wars Battlefront VR on a Galaxy S6.
There's no way the 5K iMac is going to output 2160x1200 at 90FPS at any kind of decent settings on any recent title.
Sure, Macs could "run" Oculus VR if we are simply talking Minecraft.
Sure, but what do you think the VR experience is about? Exclusive to anything but AAA titles with Unreal 4 photorealism graphics?
If you look at the top chart of VR games at Steam, you see titles like "Tilt Brush", "Budget Cuts", "Pool Nation" or "Tabletop Simulatur", neither of which are more GPU-intensive than say Minecraft. PC users with the ultimate gfx setups are playing these simple games - because they choose to. Because they are fun.
Oh and btw, the iMac 5k pushes around 95-115 FPS in Battlefield 4 on Medium settings @2560x1440p: (around 2.00)
That's 40% more pixels of resolution than in the Oculus Rift CV1. Reality check
Last edited:
Macbook Pros with dGPUs are quad-core, Oculus isn't the only VR solution, and games aren't the only VR applications.
Don't listen to this guy. It works fine. You can watch videos of people using the OR on the 1080.
I think you misread what he was saying, and in so doing missed the point entirely. He was saying older versions of Occulus software, BEFORE 1080 was included in its list of approved GPUs, wouldn't run with the 1080. The point is that Occulus discriminates based on specific GPU versus specs alone.
I have no idea if he's right or not... but that seems to be the thrust of his argument, not that the Occulus won't work with the 1080 right now.
Edit: iOS 10 beta's autocorrect is SUPER ANNOYING, just FYI. No, a "GPU" is not "Houses."
What is everyone doing once the new MBP is here?
Start a new thread for the next generation? Keep this thread alive because it's like hanging out with close friends?
Start a new thread for the next generation? Keep this thread alive because it's like hanging out with close friends?
I've recently read some reviews about Polaris, and I can honestly say we're both incorrect.
Also, there are (obviously) still no reviews at all of mobile Polaris, just a couple of benchmarks.
I'll stay optimistic about the the result we'll have, but so far I'll dare to say we won't be disappointed.
Yeah I do kinda feel like we've commiserated so much that we are like a club now. We better all post pictures of our new machines when we get them; I'll be excited to share my rose gold 15" rMBP
I was just thinking about this yesterday. It'll be a bittersweet day, but I suppose we all then graduate.
Sure, but what do you think the VR experience is about? Exclusive to anything but AAA titles with Unreal 4 photorealism graphics?
If you look at the top chart of VR games at Steam, you see titles like "Tilt Brush", "Budget Cuts", "Pool Nation" or "Tabletop Simulatur", neither of which are more GPU-intensive than say Minecraft. PC users with the ultimate gfx setups are playing these simple games - because they choose to. Because they are fun.
Oh and btw, the iMac 5k pushes around 95-115 FPS in Battlefield 4 on Medium settings @2560x1440p: (around 2.00)
That's 40% more pixels of resolution than in the Oculus Rift CV1. Reality check
Touche. Although it doesn't help much that to get this kind of performance you need a $2500 iMac. You made your point nonetheless.
We will start a new thread about things wrong with the new MacBook Pro and whine together as we have all done so far. We may come from different regions of the world but we are united by our right to complain!
I've been tempted by the xps 15 recently, so for the past week i installed windows through bootcamp to try it out. I tried so hard to like Windows but it just didnt work out. Now i'm just gonna wait for the next macbook pro to release lol
Yeah I do kinda feel like we've commiserated so much that we are like a club now. We better all post pictures of our new machines when we get them; I'll be excited to share my rose gold 15" rMBP
Owners' thread would be nice. Post pictures, impressions, benchmarks, etc.
Especially with all of the new combinations they're going to release.
I'm waiting for the 16" Mac Book Pro Plus SE Space Black with 32GB of base storage, 2GB of RAM. I haven't decided whether to get the optional built-in screen yet as it adds an additional $3000. I would get more storage and RAM but it's only available on the 24" model
I'm waiting for the 16" Mac Book Pro Plus SE Space Black with 32GB of base storage, 2GB of RAM. I haven't decided whether to get the optional built-in screen yet as it adds an additional $3000. I would get more storage and RAM but it's only available on the 24" model
Best Buy base 13" rMBP for $999.
http://slickdeals.net/f/9005371-app...901&utm_campaign=tu4&src=da_si_v2_ni_19615287
http://slickdeals.net/f/9005371-app...901&utm_campaign=tu4&src=da_si_v2_ni_19615287
We'll make 1000 pages for sure after the rage from no mbp during the sept event.
I could see rMBP and maybe Mac Pro getting stage time with silent updates to the mini and a bump for the iMac. Wait... wasn't the MacBook silently updated without an event when they revamped it?
- Status