It's AMD, It's a piece of crap IMO. Apple needs to bring back nVidia chips.
Apple has an outdated OpenGL API, even if it was a good chip the lack of Vulcan and Direct3D12 make it useless for gaming.
Last edited:
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.
Which MacBook Pro for video editing? (Budget $1700)
- Thread starter kjd161993
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's AMD, It's a piece of crap IMO. Apple needs to bring back nVidia chips.
Apple has an outdated OpenGL API, even if it was a good chip the lack of Vulcan and Direct3D12 make it useless for gaming.
Since NVIDIA has now released Pascal driver support for macOS, using an external GPU setup with an NVIDIA card might be a good option, considering Adobe products tend to work better with NVIDIA's CUDA cores. I would blame Adobe more than Apple though in this case.
I'm guessing Apple went with AMD because they're cheaper.
He has a $1700 budget, it seems, a gpu card for video editing on a mac that supports it properly, and getting it all to work nicely .. will push him to $2500+ realistically.
If white "for a while" you mean "for a last decade or so", I agree
Still, they tend to use the fastest 40W GPU on the market (political issues aside).As to comparing the 460 pro to Pascal-based Quadros... we can do that once they are released. In the meanwhile, it makes sense to compare existing products to existing products. Don't forget that the 460 was the fastest GPU in its TDP bracket in october 2017, when these laptops were released. Next up was the 1060 GTX — with more then twice the TDP.
It can simultaneously output to four 4K wide gamut displays at 60 fps. How many other GPUs can do that?
Again, your definition of "entry-level" is a bit unconventional here... these are GPUs that offer around 2TFLOPS of performance and that can conveniently run any contemporary game at full HD with acceptable performance. Calling them entry-level is a bit weird. Especially given the fact that everyone else refers to them as mid-range.
I've seen 2012 Mac Pros for a grand or so, and the rest could be spent on a decent GPU. All of NVIDIA's cards are supported in macOS including all of their new Pascal cards all the way up to the Titan XP. That's probably his only option in terms of getting an upgradable Mac. The iMac is the second-best deal, IMO.
[doublepost=1494230710][/doublepost]
Yes, I know that power consumption was a major factor here.If white "for a while" you mean "for a last decade or so", I agree
As to comparing the 460 pro to Pascal-based Quadros... we can do that once they are released. In the meanwhile, it makes sense to compare existing products to existing products. Don't forget that the 460 was the fastest GPU in its TDP bracket in october 2017, when these laptops were released. Next up was the 1060 GTX — with more then twice the TDP.
By the time you're driving all of those displays, doing actual work with those 4K displays is going to tax the GPU considerably. And any modern GPU can drive 4 displays. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That's nothing extraordinary.
It's entry-level because it has entry-level specs. Nothing I'm saying is weird. 2 TFs isn't bad, but it's considered bottom of the barrel this generation. I don't know who "everyone" is, but I haven't heard of anyone comparing it to mid-range. 2 TFs is not mid-range. I'm not saying it's an awful card, but it is what it is. Even low end GPUs this generation are performing quite well.
Last edited:
Yeah but that basically behaviours like an stove. That's why apple doesn't fit an quad core plus with a dgpu . Good luck getting it cooled properly.
4k video rendering and export is far faster on FCPX with a `15 inch MBP with AMD 460 than just about any other laptop with any other single mobile GPU using premiere pro. Take a look around the internet for comparisons and use the best tools for the job, if you are using a mac, FCPX is the way to go simple as that.
Lol, have you ever tried using one of those Razers? Put it under stress and it immediately hits boiling temperature. Immediately. They're absolute junk. Just appeals to spec whores but ironically run slow if you try to do anything vaguely resource intensive or "Pro" as they're throttling every 2 seconds.
Razer's thermal design is utter trash. If it was easy to put a quad core/dGPU in a 13" system without any thermal concerns, then Apple would certainly have done it. I'd use the 13" rMBP over that Razer any day of the week. Raw hardware specifications means nothing if you don't have a thermal system that can take it.
Once again, people here judging products on paper specs and not products they've actually used.
Option number one is by far the winner of that bunch. The quad-core i7 with hyper-threading in that machine will embarrass the dual-core CPUs in the other models mentioned.
Good luck!
Again, I was referring to just the CPU, not all the things they shoved into a 14" chassis. The dGPU was never the point of why I brought that up. I get that the laptop runs like the surface of the sun. The point was that they could fit all that into the chassis ... and that Apple could probably fit a quad core CPU into their 13" if they wanted to. Or maybe I'm horribly wrong with that assumption. That's also a possibility.
And again, I was referring to just the CPU, not the dGPU.
Last edited:
So was I. CPU immediately hits TJ max under Intel BurnTest.
...and have a terrible product as a result.
Well that's subjective. People seem to be liking the 15" just fine. As for heat issues, have you ever used a Mac laptop before? If I don't use a lap-guard while doing intensive tasks, I won't have a lap. Apple isn't exactly known for having super awesome cooling, though laptop cooling in general is in need of improvement. Their iMacs still suffer from problems with heat dissipation, which causes underperforming components due to throttling.
And yes, I've used the 15" with the 460 ... and it still gets very hot, especially while rendering video. I would say it's improved, but not by any significant margin.
Is it? Components in a laptop which immediately throttle and immediately overheat under stress? There's nothing subjective about that. If you have those components in a laptop and the laptop can't begin to handle it, then it's objectively a **** laptop because it can't even threaten using the hardware to anywhere near its full potential. Especially if you're using that laptop to argue that it has better specs and Macs are underpowered rip-offs.
That's because the aluminum body displaces heat. So it may feel hot to the touch but the internal components run cooler. Unlike the Razer, where both the internal components and the chassis are boiling.
Also the 2016 15" has unprecedented cooling; it's incredibly well designed. You can make fair points about older MBPs but if you're making those points about pre-2014 machines on a thread about MBPs still being sold (2015/2016), then I honestly can't see what point you're trying to make.
We're talking about MacBook Pros, not iMacs. Moving the goalposts when your point gets shot down in flames is a pretty desperate tactic.
Dude, are you kidding? The 15" has throttling issues as well due to heat. We may never see a laptop that is getting 100% efficiency from proper cooling.
It's not unprecedented. The newest 15" MacBook Pro still suffers from heat throttling. Maybe put down the Apple Kool-aid.
I'm just having a conversation. Nothing I said has been shot down in flames, lol. I love Apple, but I won't blindly defend them. It's possible to use and enjoy a company's products while also remaining objective.
There's a big difference between what you're saying and a system immediately hitting boiling temperature and throttling. Immediately is the key word for that Razer and it's no exaggeration.
This isn't a difficult distinction to grasp. Nobody's saying the 2016 15" MBP will never, ever, ever throttle. What people have been correcting you on is that you cited the Razer as the benchmark for hardware power in a thin body, whilst it immediately overheats like nothing else.
Again, immediately. Holy moley, I can't over emphasise that word.
For much, much fewer people than before. Most people stressing the GPU in the 2016 barely break 80C. The thermal design was very well thought out. It's incredibly designed in the 2016 and is not only the best in any MBP, but by far and away the best in any ultra-thin portable with dGPU. So yeah, I'd say that's unprecedented in the context of a laptop.
Again, I know the Razer becomes molten lava, that wasn't the point I was making.
It sure isn't. I'm only comparing Macs to Macs.
You sure implied that by talking about "unprecedented" cooling and how you can't get 100% efficiency under stress in the 13" when the same applies to the 15". And you tell me I'm moving goal posts. Good grief.
I never cited the Razer as a benchmark for hardware. My only point for bringing it up ... literally my only point ... is they crammed both a quad core and a dGPU in the chassis ... and that Apple could probably find a way to fit just the quad core CPU into the 13 chassis. It had nothing to do with benchmarks or using the Razer as some sort of example that Apple should follow. My only point was size constraints and nothing more. I'm not the only person shocked at the use of a dual core in the 13". I also stated that I could be completely wrong about the quad core in the 13".
And again, I wasn't comparing specs, I was comparing space used.
And it still suffers from heat throttling. But I do agree it's much improved over previous generations.
At the expense of terrible cooling and a product useless at its only task; hardware performance. The only time the Razer should be brought up in a discussion is when people discuss how not to make a powerful laptop. The proof is right there that those components cannot belong in a chassis like that; certainly, until a different laptop comes along which says otherwise.
Unless all along you've been making the point that Razer's implementation failed, but Apple could somehow achieve that? Let's re-read:
...err, nope. From what I can see, you definitely weren't. You're modifying your argument as you go when you were called out on the cooling.
We're just going in circles here. Look I hope I'm not just being an asshat and if that was the point you were initially trying to make, I am sorry. I don't wish you bad, it's just really frustrating to read these arguments sometimes.
What you've said above is not what you initially said, is what I mean. But points are lost in text I guess and we're all guilty of this and that. It's fine, bro. But if it's cool with you I'll wish you a great evening and we'll stop derailing this thread with our discussion.
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. If any company can do it, it's Apple. I wouldn't want Apple to do something like Razer unless they could make it not suck horribly.
Current MacBook Pros still suffer from thermal throttling. You made it sound like this is only a problem with the 13". Granted, this is a problem with laptops in general, but I do agree Apple is making better progress in power-to-cooling than other companies.
I don't think you're an asshat, I think we're just having a discussion.
Well then I apologize for being confusing. Literally all I meant from the start is that Apple, with all their resources, could probably find a way to implement a quad core CPU in the 13". Or maybe they can't. It just oftentimes feels like they make decisions with money-saving as a priority than innovation. They do both, but some of their decisions are questionable.What you've said above is not what you initially said, is what I mean. But points are lost in text I guess and we're all guilty of this and that. It's fine, bro. But if it's cool with you I'll wish you a great evening and we'll stop derailing this thread with our discussion.