Unlike phones the monitor hardware (off GPU processing) processes the data sent to it. Easiest demonstration would be using a PC (or external monitor) if you are playing a game at 1080p on a 1080p monitor than unplug that monitor and plug in a 4K monitor but keep the same resolution the FPS won't change. Or even if the monitor is completely unplugged for that matter.
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.
First benchmarks shows radeon pro 560 a lot worse than 460
- Thread starter Darajavahus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unlike phones the monitor hardware (off GPU processing) processes the data sent to it. Easiest demonstration would be using a PC (or external monitor) if you are playing a game at 1080p on a 1080p monitor than unplug that monitor and plug in a 4K monitor but keep the same resolution the FPS won't change. Or even if the monitor is completely unplugged for that matter.
It will not bottleneck RX 560 in GPU bound situation. But it will in CPU bound situation. Testing old games, in 1440x900 medium settings is CPU bound situation. The same goes for even 1080p medium settings.
For example, in medium Settings Radeon RX 560 in Overwatch in 1080p is able to push up to 120 FPS. Give it a bad CPU and it will bottleneck it. In 1080p Ultra settings in the same game there will be no difference if the RX 560 is paired with Pentium G4560, Core i7 4 core/8Thread, or Ryzen 7 8core/16 thread CPU. Because it is GPU bound scenario.
What you are saying makes sense. But we are talking an i5 3.8ghz desktop quad against a 3.8ghz mobile quad with hyper threading. The hyperthreading isn't going to make that much difference, it is more clock speed which is comparable. And in all honesty I expect the mbp quad to downclock under load unlike the iMac
Does it really make a difference? The compositing may induce some delay, it but should not reduce the fps by much.
BTW Leman, get you ass on the gaming forum and tell us how Metal 2 is great, pronto!
BTW Leman, get you ass on the gaming forum and tell us how Metal 2 is great, pronto!
There is a gaming forum?
I'm not sure that I'm competent enough to write a summary post on Metal 2, but if you have some specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
And yes, it's absolutely great. If I read this correctly it can now allow one to do some fairly crazy stuff beyond what DX12 and Vulkan are offering.
And yet the specs are more or less identical.
http://creators.radeon.com/radeon-pro/
460: 1.86 TFlops, 16 CU, 80 GB/s
560: 1.9 TFlops. 16 CU, 81 GB/s
http://creators.radeon.com/radeon-pro/
460: 1.86 TFlops, 16 CU, 80 GB/s
560: 1.9 TFlops. 16 CU, 81 GB/s
Fully loaded MBP 2016 has 2.9 GHz Core i7 Skylake CPU. It Turbo's up to 3.6 GHz on all cores. Which means all 8 threads have 3.6 GHz. Compare this to All core Turbo boost on 4 threads of Core i5, which is the same.
35W TDP Core i7 7700T is able to maintain all core boost in 90% load scenarios.
We have a couple of threads discussing WWDC announcement in the Mac & PC games forum. I'm personally wondering if argument buffers have equivalents in DX12 and Vulkan (if they correspond to reusable command buffers that people were asking), and if important features that some said were missing (sparse data, transform feedback, shader atomics on texture objects...) are now in Metal 2.There is a gaming forum?
I'm not sure that I'm competent enough to write a summary post on Metal 2, but if you have some specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
And yes, it's absolutely great. If I read this correctly it can now allow one to do some fairly crazy stuff beyond what DX12 and Vulkan are offering.
I could find answers myself but the Metal documentation is Chinese to me.
Well, did they benchmark the stuff on the external monitor? And yes, desktop composition is still a thing and it's on permanently on macOS.
Anyway, my point is that there might be a plethora of factors behind these performance differences. They certainly don't suggest that the 560 is slower than the 460
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/813875 56700 imac 560
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/815118 89388 imac 570
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/813785 98728 imac 570
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/814236 55361 imac 560
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/811178 108337 imac 575
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/816128 34735 macbook pro 555
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/816874 41753 macbook pro 560
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/815105 123856 imac 580
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/815118 89388 imac 570
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/813785 98728 imac 570
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/814236 55361 imac 560
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/811178 108337 imac 575
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/816128 34735 macbook pro 555
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/816874 41753 macbook pro 560
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/815105 123856 imac 580
Last edited:
It can't maintain full boost on a mbp with sustained cpu and gpu load (I.e. Gaming) I have tested.
And hyperthreading won't give the cpu much of an advantage in games so you can see why this cpu is no superior to the desktop i5 in gaming and therefore the desktop i5 is not a bottleneck.
It is superior. Threads are always threads. Core i5 is loaded fully, while Core i7 is not fully loaded because of increased amount of work it can do. 8 Threads really that make that huge difference vs 4 threads. Obviously they are not physical cores, but the amount of work that is scheduled is higher on Core i7, thats why for high framerate scenarios everybody will tell you to buy Core i7 over Core i5.
If it does not sustain 3.6 GHz all of the time on all cores, to what level it declocks under load, then? 3.4? 3.5 GHz? It still will be faster overall for high framerate/low res/low detail scenarios.
I suppose this page should be helpful, then..
http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html
The 580 has a geekbench compute of around 116K
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/818659
So only 8K better then a 575
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/818659
So only 8K better then a 575
I found a 580 that did 123856.
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/compare/818659?baseline=815105
maybe the extra RAM and i7 helped.
maybe the conditions of the test were different in other ways
[doublepost=1497203437][/doublepost]
I suppose I could load up all the benchmarks on a flash drive and run them at the local Apple store 'til I get kicked out.
They are comparing effect of CPU bottleneck on fast GPU like GTX 1080.
You have proven my post, rather than disprove it.
TechSpot and Hardware Unboxed is run by the same guys.
And this is what they have to say about a difference in performance in different tiers of resolution and detail vs performance of the CPU.
In High detail, high resolution the situation between Core i5 and Core i7 will be the same as is with GTX 1050 Ti. In low resolution/medium settings it will be the same situation as is with GTX 1080.
Last edited:
Good grief. This kind of thing is what makes PC enthusiasts make fun of Mac users. Oy.
Someone on Youtube finally benchmarked the 21.5 iMac playing games via bootcamp. The results were satisfactory to me. 1080p and pretty stable 60 FPS on most of the games they tried. I'm just a casual gamer and don't look to get 120 FPS or play at 4K. Just want to play Street Fighter V and Resident Evil here and there.
Likely the REAL reason the Radeon Pro 560 sucks in the MBP 15" of mid-2017 is because of thermal throttling.
The equivalent 2016 MacBook Pro uses a Radeon Pro 460 (which I have). It has 16 CUs (1024 shaders) running at 850 MHz stock* with an 80 GB/s memory bandwidth to the 4GB of GDDR5. By the way, the TDP is 35 watts. It thermal throttles in most games that mostly max both CPU and GPU, especially in Windows.
The Radeon Pro 560 in the mid-2017 MBP, by comparison, has the same 16 CUs (1024 shaders), but running at 925 MHz with a slightly improved 81 GB/s memory bandwidth to the same 4GB of GDDR5. It also has the same TDP of 35W.
Now, I suspect that the small performance drops are due to throttling because since the two MBPs are identical except for a few faster components in the 2017 model, the hypothesis is that the second one throttles more. Why do I think this? Well, the core clock is increased 75 MHz with no known increase in cooling efficiency. Thus, the 560 will run at higher clocks more of the time, causing heat to go up, and eventually, throttling to ensue quicker. The benchmarks take a non-zero time to complete; thus, the 560 likely has to lower its clock for more of the test, resulting in a slightly worse score.
*Under Windows, using experimental modified drivers, overclocking IS possible on both models (to some extent). When using MSI Afterburner, I was able to get a stable overclock by increasing the 460's clock to 560 level, dragging the memory clock slider all the way to the right (!), and undervolting by 40 mV. The card throttles about the same amount, but performances is up on the 560 by about 5%. Alas, it doesn't persist through reboots, but that's OK for me.
The equivalent 2016 MacBook Pro uses a Radeon Pro 460 (which I have). It has 16 CUs (1024 shaders) running at 850 MHz stock* with an 80 GB/s memory bandwidth to the 4GB of GDDR5. By the way, the TDP is 35 watts. It thermal throttles in most games that mostly max both CPU and GPU, especially in Windows.
The Radeon Pro 560 in the mid-2017 MBP, by comparison, has the same 16 CUs (1024 shaders), but running at 925 MHz with a slightly improved 81 GB/s memory bandwidth to the same 4GB of GDDR5. It also has the same TDP of 35W.
Now, I suspect that the small performance drops are due to throttling because since the two MBPs are identical except for a few faster components in the 2017 model, the hypothesis is that the second one throttles more. Why do I think this? Well, the core clock is increased 75 MHz with no known increase in cooling efficiency. Thus, the 560 will run at higher clocks more of the time, causing heat to go up, and eventually, throttling to ensue quicker. The benchmarks take a non-zero time to complete; thus, the 560 likely has to lower its clock for more of the test, resulting in a slightly worse score.
*Under Windows, using experimental modified drivers, overclocking IS possible on both models (to some extent). When using MSI Afterburner, I was able to get a stable overclock by increasing the 460's clock to 560 level, dragging the memory clock slider all the way to the right (!), and undervolting by 40 mV. The card throttles about the same amount, but performances is up on the 560 by about 5%. Alas, it doesn't persist through reboots, but that's OK for me.
