wtf? Why is everybody saying polaris sux? Really thought amd was going to do something big With this one.
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
wtf? Why is everybody saying polaris sux? Really thought amd was going to do something big With this one.
Agreed - the loss of revenue in the 2 month period between announcement and release could be more than made up for by the extended advertising period and the fact that most people will be willing to wait so Apple gets the cash anyway. The very end of the current quarter could look ropey though.
Because desktop (Polaris 10) is already out and not very power efficient, mobile polaris will be very similar but worse (narrower memory bus, less "compute units" than the desktop chip although they didn't define what a "compute unit" is). AMD already published benchmark scores hidden in the footnotes of a PR slide that suggest it performs like a GTX960m/Playstation 4.
if it helps so did AMD and Apple
Because desktop (Polaris 10) is already out and not very power efficient, mobile polaris will be very similar but worse (narrower memory bus, less "compute units" than the desktop chip although they didn't define what a "compute unit" is). AMD already published benchmark scores hidden in the footnotes of a PR slide that suggest it performs like a GTX960m/Playstation 4.
if it helps so did AMD and Apple
In those same slides, AMD states that mobile 480 will have a full-fledged Polaris 11 GPU with complete CUs, and that it will indeed perform around a 965m (Firestrike 5600 points).
But assuming that mobile perf/watt is similar to desktop is bs. Desktop Polaris is optimized for maximum performance, if you look at 460 reviews it's clear that 5% more performance consume 50% more wattage. Also, as not a single reference 460 has been tested yet (only oc versions), we have not a profound clue about mobile Polaris perf/watt. AMD states that the 460m has a 35w TDP, that would be a superb perf/watt. The 1060 mobile has a TDP of 100 watts and is just not suitable for the MBP.
Will Polaris GPUs in a MBP be able to do regular VR? I'm not really concerned with über graphics-intense multiplayer gaming, but regular immersive VR interests me.
I would recommend a custom PC.
It always puzzles me that these questions come up.
You can be absolutely sure that the GPU performance will not be close to anything available in the PC universe.
Apple does not build hardware for that purpose.
Definitely won't be getting a PC...just wanted to know if it would be an added perk when I get my MBP.
In terms of actual power consumption, if what you are saying were correct (5% = 50% higher power consumption) then Apple could have asked nicely for a custom "GTX 1055" chip (like they did with the GT650m & GT750m) that would blow the doors off Polaris at nearly performance of a GTX1060.
Here's the typical wattage of a mobile GTX1060 — a 50% reduction would put you comfortably below 50W which is what you'll find in a current rMBP:
It seems safe to assume that a new, maxed out Polaris 11 rMBP will deliver roughly half the graphics performance of a $1500 GTX1060 notebook and one third the performance of a $2000 GTX1070 notebook.
Perhaps the trade-off in thinness/temperature/battery runtime will be worth it for the average consumer but I'll be disappointed.
Yeah, no. AMD Polaris 11 is a given at this point. New drivers supporting it were found in the macOS Sierra beta, whereas there was no support for NVIDIA's offerings. Hoping for Pascal at this point is just wishful thinking, it's not happening, nor we need to make up scenarios were omnipotent Apple asks for custom offerings from NVIDIA. You are correct on your assessment of Polaris' performance though. If you want Pascal on a notebook you'll have to look elsewhere, not Apple's lineup.In terms of actual power consumption, if what you are saying were correct (5% = 50% higher power consumption) then Apple could have asked nicely for a custom "GTX 1055" chip (like they did with the GT650m & GT750m) that would blow the doors off Polaris at nearly performance of a GTX1060.
Here's the typical wattage of a mobile GTX1060 — a 50% reduction would put you comfortably below 50W which is what you'll find in a current rMBP:
It seems safe to assume that a new, maxed out Polaris 11 rMBP will deliver roughly half the graphics performance of a $1500 GTX1060 notebook and one third the performance of a $2000 GTX1070 notebook.
Perhaps the trade-off in thinness/temperature/battery runtime will be worth it for the average consumer but I'll be disappointed.
As someone who is looking to play some WoW on MBP, this excites me greatly:
http://www.cio.com/article/3096995/...f-warcraft-in-legion-pre-expansion-patch.html
http://www.cio.com/article/3097642/...es-a-big-difference-in-world-of-warcraft.html
I'm not well versed in GPUs. The one the author was using on his 5K iMac was an R9 M295X. How does that compare to the integrated graphics and probably Polaris GPUs that we might get with the MBP?
http://www.cio.com/article/3096995/...f-warcraft-in-legion-pre-expansion-patch.html
http://www.cio.com/article/3097642/...es-a-big-difference-in-world-of-warcraft.html
I'm not well versed in GPUs. The one the author was using on his 5K iMac was an R9 M295X. How does that compare to the integrated graphics and probably Polaris GPUs that we might get with the MBP?
I guess I'm not surprised that Apple is continuing to not make the ultimate gaming laptop just like they've always not done. But this GPU will probably be fine for photo editing and that's really what I care about.
This is also what i need it for, but a little gaming capabilities won't hurt
IDF 2016 kicks off today at Moscone Center. We'll see what processor news we get.
http://www.pcmag.com/news/347029/what-to-expect-at-idf-2016
http://www.pcmag.com/news/347029/what-to-expect-at-idf-2016
Interesting, Can't wait to see what happens...
Edit due to me writing nonsense
Last edited:
I can't help but think that the only reason Apple would use AMD over Nvida is pure profits. Obviously AMD is willing to sell them their inferior technology cheap enough that it makes it worth it for Apple.
So how long until AMD outbids Intel on the CPUs as well?
So how long until AMD outbids Intel on the CPUs as well?
Because desktop (Polaris 10) is already out and not very power efficient, mobile polaris will be very similar but worse (narrower memory bus, less "compute units" than the desktop chip although they didn't define what a "compute unit" is). AMD already published benchmark scores hidden in the footnotes of a PR slide that suggest it performs like a GTX960m/Playstation 4.
if it helps so did AMD and Apple
Polaris 10 is such a fail, IMO. The RX 480 is a joke. AMD's next big thing is a GTX 970 that isn't available, at all, and costs more, with sh***ier drivers.
yep- the 1070s tho should be available now on the MSI. have not found it yet.
[doublepost=1471361500][/doublepost]
Because desktop (Polaris 10) is already out and not very power efficient, mobile polaris will be very similar but worse (narrower memory bus, less "compute units" than the desktop chip although they didn't define what a "compute unit" is). AMD already published benchmark scores hidden in the footnotes of a PR slide that suggest it performs like a GTX960m/Playstation 4.
if it helps so did AMD and Apple
Kind of amazing Tim Cook would make us wait this long and put AMD in there when NVDA is so much better
playstation 4 grapics is pretty far down on that chart compared to what nvidia is doing
[doublepost=1471362186][/doublepost]
If we are getting polaris 11 and the benchmarks are right- the amd chip is like 1/3rd the power of the nvdia GPU 1060 that Nvidia says is barely able to do VR.
I'm hoping we are missing something.
that gave me shudder/cringe reaction..... I am hoping that it can't/doubting such a thing can come to pass.
Last edited:
Are you forgetting that we are talking about Tim Cook? All he cares about is that this graphics card is thinner than the others. From that point of view it's a killer card.
AMD is terrible. Really disappointed Apple continues to hitch their wagon to them.
Maybe 13" Macbook Pro with Kaby Lake is closer than we think?
http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/dell-xps-7th-gen-core-demoed
http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/dell-xps-7th-gen-core-demoed
I may be in the minority but I'm only asking that the graphics card be 'adequate', as the thunderbolt 3 port would allow me to hopefully easily add an external GPU for gaming and more serious work. If that means we get a sleeker more portable 15" at the cost of having a mediocre AMD chip, then so be it.
- Status