Jump to content


New MacBook Pro's

Macbook Pro Late 2016

  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#121 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 08 December 2016 - 06:03 PM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 08 December 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

The 1 micron of extra thinness they achieved is clearly worth all of these negatives. My 2015 13" rMBP is so fraking thick that I struggle fitting it in the trunk of my car.

LOL, n00bs. My 2012 only fits in an XXXXXXXL carry case mounted to my roof. Its 5.3 pound weight is so high, my microscopic hipster arm muscles quake with fatigue after only moments of carrying it into the local Starbucks (or Tim Horton's if you're Snake). Bring on the new world, I say. A pro laptop as thin and light as a piece of paper with no ports whatsoever and inductive charging, with a 6 inch cube that you have to carry around to attach to it for any kind of pro connectivity.

... actually, come to think of it, that sounds a lot like a portable version of the Mac Pro.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#122 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8075 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:57 AM

A short follow up: I have installed Windows 10 now and was able to test a couple of games. The machine actually fares quite well: DiRT Rally and DOOM* both run with 40–50 fps in average at a resolution of 1920x1200 and high settings (60–70 fps in both cases when I drop the resolution to 1680x1050), Overwatch maintains a framerate over 60 fps even at 1920x1200. Only GTA V doesn't run too well: it only achieves slightly above 20 fps at 1920x1200 and around 30 fps at 1680x1050 (the next lower available 16:10 resolution is for some reason only 1280x800…).

(*Edit: Forgot to mention that the values for DOOM are measured using Vulkan. The framerates with OpenGL are about 10% lower.)

Edit #2: I found that I could increase GTA V's framerates to solid 60 fps in average at 1920x1200 with some minor tweaking of the settings. It turned out that the default setting of 4x MSAA was not well chosen…

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#123 Sneaky Snake

Sneaky Snake

    Official Mascot of the 1988 Winter Olympics

  • IMG Writers
  • 3298 posts
  • Steam Name:SneakySnake
  • Steam ID:sneaky_snake
  • Location:Waterloo, Canada

Posted 20 December 2016 - 09:13 AM

View PostJanichsan, on 20 December 2016 - 03:57 AM, said:

A short follow up: I have installed Windows 10 now and was able to test a couple of games. The machine actually fares quite well: DiRT Rally and DOOM* both run with 40–50 fps in average at a resolution of 1920x1200 and high settings (60–70 fps in both cases when I drop the resolution to 1680x1050), Overwatch maintains a framerate over 60 fps even at 1920x1200. Only GTA V doesn't run too well: it only achieves slightly above 20 fps at 1920x1200 and around 30 fps at 1680x1050 (the next lower available 16:10 resolution is for some reason only 1280x800…).

(*Edit: Forgot to mention that the values for DOOM are measured using Vulkan. The framerates with OpenGL are about 10% lower.)

TL:DR: Radeon is making some great GPU's in their respective categories. People need to stop comparing them to Nvidia GPU's that are in completely different price and wattage brackets.

Rant incoming:

The 460 is a pretty capable card. If you read on MacRumors everyone seems to be convinced that Radeon = popsnizzle and Nvidia = god, but most of them know nearly nothing about GPUs.

It is true that Nvidia would have made more sense in some of Apple's recent computers (The 2015 iMacwould have benefitted decently from a 980M instead of the M395X - although the 395X isn't far behind the 980M in performance) but AMD has started making some really great cards with Polaris. The Radeon Pro 460 in the 15" MBP is a 35W TDP GPU. I cannot stress this enough. Many people are complaining that Apple did not go for the 1060 or even the 1050/1050Ti. The 1060 uses triple the power of the Radeon Pro 460. The 1050 and 1050 Ti use a little over double the power. For only using 35W of power, the Radeon Pro 460 is a fantastic GPU that is performing well above its power rating. It is AMD's real vision for Polaris (since the Radeon Pro 460 is the first uncut Polaris chip).

The Radeon vs Nvidia bias for the average consumer is further complicated by the fact that almost every tech popular tech youtuber that I watched review the new MBP reivewed it using applications that heavily favour Nvidia cards due to CUDA acceleration. They will compare the XPS 15 with the new 15" MBP in Adobe Premier Pro - and say "we see here that the XPS with the Nvidia GPU has half the render time of the MBP with the Radeon GPU in Premier Pro". If they benchmarked using an application that actually uses open GPU standards, such as final cut pro, the results would show Final Cut destroying Premier Pro in performance.

When they release new desktop in 2017 with hopefully Vega GPU's (assuming they stick with AMD) every generic forum poster on MacRumor's is going to start popsnizzle posting again about how "shoulda been Nvidia" "lol popsnizzle Radeon" etc. Obviously, we don't know Vega's performance yet, but it's looking like it'll be on par with the 1080 and Titan XP and will likely be a very capable GPU.

My point isn't that Radeon is better than Nvidia or that every computer should use Radeon GPU's, but rather that people should stop comparing Radeon GPU's with Nvidia's GPU's that are completely in another class. Of course a $400 1070 is more powerful than a $200 RX 480. No one is arguing otherwise. I wish Apple would offer the best GPU's (which are currently Nvidia) in their machines, but just because the GTX 1080 is the fastest card on the market right now doesn't mean that every Radeon GPU is popsnizzle.

/rant
2015 13" rMBP: i5 5257U @ 2.7 GHz || Intel Iris 6100 || 8 GB LPDDR3 1866 || 256 GB SSD || macOS Sierra
Gaming Build: R5 1600 @ 3.9 GHz || Asus GTX 1070 8 GB || 16 GB DDR4 3000 || 960 Evo NVMe, 1 TB FireCuda || Win10 Pro
Other: Dell OptiPlex 3040 as VMware host || QNAP TS-228 NAS || iPhone 6S 64GB

#124 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8075 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:11 PM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 20 December 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:


TL:DR: Radeon is making some great GPU's in their respective categories. People need to stop comparing them to Nvidia GPU's that are in completely different price and wattage brackets.

I guess the greatest issue is that you only get that $200 GPU when you pay a $100 premium on a $2800 notebook. It's not a really bad graphics card, but for that price, you could expect more.

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#125 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 20 December 2016 - 08:59 PM

Yeah. There was a time the "Apple computers' price/performance ratio sucks" argument was pure hot air, and they were actually quite competitive with other prebuilts when you got down to pricing them out. For one example, the 2012 iMac was a killer all-in-one gaming machine and prosumer desktop at the time. The Mac mini from the same year was also a killer micro PC and/or SMB server.

Unfortunately that time seems to have passed in the Cook era.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#126 AussieMacGamer

AussieMacGamer

    Owner, 2nd Largest Topic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3087 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 01:06 AM

View PostFrost, on 20 December 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

Unfortunately that time seems to have passed in the Cook era.

I don't really think you can put it down to leadership. There were some pretty poor value coming out of Jobs era Macs too


EDIT: My 2006 15" macbook pro was AU$3200, and that was the baseline, the CPU was great but the GPU was really sub par. It didn't have much storage (even in 2006 128gb wasn't that much) and it was another $200 to get 512mb VRAM.

I punched that price into the Reserve Bank of Australia inflation calculator and it penned it at AU$4,049.42 today.

The baseline 15" T3 MBP starts at $3600 AUD and I think it's pretty comparable in value to my Baseline Macbook pro of yesteryear. It isn't the most reliable comparison but I think the value here is okay. I just can't help but feel apple have added the cost of consumer rights overheads into the cost of the product.

IMG Resident Crackpot
"What you need is a dog or a girlfriend, or both, or one in the same!" -Gary Simmons Aka. The Battle Cat
15" Macbook Pro C2D 2.16Ghz ATI X1600 3Gb Ram w/Samsung 840 SSD R.I.P

2015 Mbp 13", 256gb SSD

Windows popsnizzlebox with a 5400rpm HD and a GTX 1060

Now Playing: Player Unknown's Battlegrounds/CS:GO/Rising Storm 2/The Witcher 3 Blood and Wine/Shenmue 1


#127 Cougar

Cougar

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1353 posts
  • Steam Name:FuzzyPuffin

Posted 21 December 2016 - 01:17 AM

View PostAussieMacGamer, on 21 December 2016 - 01:06 AM, said:

I don't really think you can put it down to leadership. There were some pretty poor value coming out of Jobs era Macs too

I don't disagree, but I also think it's a very Tim Cook thing to do things like take away the extension cord from the MBPs and sell it to you for $19. Hell, you don't even get a nice lint-free cloth in the box anymore either.

#128 AussieMacGamer

AussieMacGamer

    Owner, 2nd Largest Topic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3087 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 01:37 AM

View PostCougar, on 21 December 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

I don't disagree, but I also think it's a very Tim Cook thing to do things like take away the extension cord from the MBPs and sell it to you for $19. Hell, you don't even get a nice lint-free cloth in the box anymore either.

I mean yes the rationalisation of accessories is very Tim Cook. It's an area where we can see profit motive influencing product design, I really don't think we have enough data to say there was a trend eitherway between Cook/Jobs. Not only that, I would argue that Cook has had as much of an influence over these things as Jobs did In the time period in question.

I would generally say however that Jobs would likely have been less focused on over rationalisation of the product lineup, albeit to the detriment of profits and Apple's share price.

P.S. The USB-C charger sucks. There's no built in cable management, no supplied GPO extender, no magsafe built into the cable. It's so uninspired I hate it and I hate to say it but if Steve Jobs were alive, so would he. The only benefit is that if the cable dies you don't have to buy a whole new adapter.

IMG Resident Crackpot
"What you need is a dog or a girlfriend, or both, or one in the same!" -Gary Simmons Aka. The Battle Cat
15" Macbook Pro C2D 2.16Ghz ATI X1600 3Gb Ram w/Samsung 840 SSD R.I.P

2015 Mbp 13", 256gb SSD

Windows popsnizzlebox with a 5400rpm HD and a GTX 1060

Now Playing: Player Unknown's Battlegrounds/CS:GO/Rising Storm 2/The Witcher 3 Blood and Wine/Shenmue 1


#129 Sneaky Snake

Sneaky Snake

    Official Mascot of the 1988 Winter Olympics

  • IMG Writers
  • 3298 posts
  • Steam Name:SneakySnake
  • Steam ID:sneaky_snake
  • Location:Waterloo, Canada

Posted 21 December 2016 - 11:05 AM

I think a large part of the negative opinion about the new MBP is also due to the fact that the Mac lineup as a whole is in pretty rough shape. I don't think nearly as many people would be complaining about the new MBP if the iMac, Mac Mini, or Mac Pro were in good places. As it stands the 2015 iMac doesn't offer that much more performance then the 2016 MBP (slightly more CPU power, option for 32 GB of RAM, and more GPU power). I think that most users who are looking for performance beyond the 2016 MBP would really like to go down the Mac Pro route, but the Mac Pro hasn't been updated in years and is performance obsolete now compared with workstations from Dell, HP, and other OEMs.

The iMac is in an ok spot, but it could really use a graphics upgrade to the GTX1060/RX 480 with an option to have the 1070 and maybe even the 1080. From a heat/wattage perspective the M395X pulls roughly the same watts and generates the same heat as a 1080.

If Apple is holding off for Vega GPU's that's fine, but I really hope they include the top of line Vega chip that is meant to be competing with the 1080.
2015 13" rMBP: i5 5257U @ 2.7 GHz || Intel Iris 6100 || 8 GB LPDDR3 1866 || 256 GB SSD || macOS Sierra
Gaming Build: R5 1600 @ 3.9 GHz || Asus GTX 1070 8 GB || 16 GB DDR4 3000 || 960 Evo NVMe, 1 TB FireCuda || Win10 Pro
Other: Dell OptiPlex 3040 as VMware host || QNAP TS-228 NAS || iPhone 6S 64GB

#130 AussieMacGamer

AussieMacGamer

    Owner, 2nd Largest Topic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3087 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 08:44 PM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 21 December 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

If Apple is holding off for Vega GPU's that's fine, but I really hope they include the top of line Vega chip that is meant to be competing with the 1080.

I wouldn't hold thine breath. I think you will see more expensive/more stratified/magic keyboard with touchbar (maaaybe)/Thunderbolt 3

The current price lineup is good if I imagine the computer has Thunderbolt 3. I'm skeptical it will stay this way though. If it does, the cheapest 27" with a fusiondrive will be the one for me. Provided they work with the screen i'll invest in an eGPU when the internal one gets long in the tooth.

Re: negative opinion you are totally right though. It's kind of a three pronged thing, Lack of excitement and sufficient new computers/radical new design, seeming arrogance to traditional computer use case scenario's/ Price hike.

IMG Resident Crackpot
"What you need is a dog or a girlfriend, or both, or one in the same!" -Gary Simmons Aka. The Battle Cat
15" Macbook Pro C2D 2.16Ghz ATI X1600 3Gb Ram w/Samsung 840 SSD R.I.P

2015 Mbp 13", 256gb SSD

Windows popsnizzlebox with a 5400rpm HD and a GTX 1060

Now Playing: Player Unknown's Battlegrounds/CS:GO/Rising Storm 2/The Witcher 3 Blood and Wine/Shenmue 1


#131 Camper-Hunter

Camper-Hunter

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts
  • Steam Name:Rorqual
  • Steam ID:Rorqual
  • Location:Paris, France

Posted 22 December 2016 - 01:58 AM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 21 December 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

If Apple is holding off for Vega GPU's that's fine, but I really hope they include the top of line Vega chip that is meant to be competing with the 1080.

When did Apple choose the highest performance GPU in an iMac (or even a Mac Pro for that matter)? Not going to happen, ever. Be happy if you get 1060 level performance in a future iMac.

#132 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2171 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 22 December 2016 - 08:39 AM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 21 December 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:


If Apple is holding off for Vega GPU's that's fine, but I really hope they include the top of line Vega chip that is meant to be competing with the 1080.

I guess my question is why would they bother.  

They clearly dont give a rats behind about gaming, and you certainly dont need a 1080 or equivalent for the rest of what Macs can do.  Maybe rendering of some kind, but the native apps make much better use of AMD parts, and i wouldn't expect them to outfit the iMac that way, when they can put those GPUs in a Mac Pro (if it ever gets updated) and overcharge you for them?  

I have to agree with Camper-Hunter here; be happy if you get anything past mid-range at all.  A 1060 or RX 480 would easily push 5K for anything other than gaming at 60hz+... so that's the best theyll use.

#133 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2171 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 22 December 2016 - 08:45 AM

View PostAussieMacGamer, on 21 December 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

Provided they work with the screen i'll invest in an eGPU when the internal one gets long in the tooth.

TB3 isn't enough to make it work, though.  Not enough bandwidth back to the computer to make it work.  Razer already has this issue with the Blade Stealth; when using the Core TB3 add-on, when it is piping the feed back to the internal screen, there is a huge framerate hit, that is not present when the eGPU is connected to an external monitor (Linus Tech Tips did a thing on it).  

Now.. an interesting work-around for an iMac would be if you ran the Video-out from the back fo the GPU Into the iMac via one of the DP/TB ports.  As long as they finally support DP 1.4, the input would have enough bandwidth to carry a 5K signal (which is the reason you cant currently use the 5K iMac as a Target Display - it only supports DP 1.2 which doesn't have enough bandwidth to drive a 5K display).  

Not sure Apple will care enough to do this, though finally supporting TDM for the 5K iMac might actually get me to buy one (the base i5 model is actually cheaper than just buying the plain display from LG... no joke) - since i can use it as my daily driver for 5-6 years (at least) and then swap it to being the monitor for my gaming rig and still get use out of it when it is time to replace it.

#134 Sneaky Snake

Sneaky Snake

    Official Mascot of the 1988 Winter Olympics

  • IMG Writers
  • 3298 posts
  • Steam Name:SneakySnake
  • Steam ID:sneaky_snake
  • Location:Waterloo, Canada

Posted 22 December 2016 - 08:54 AM

View PostCamper-Hunter, on 22 December 2016 - 01:58 AM, said:

When did Apple choose the highest performance GPU in an iMac (or even a Mac Pro for that matter)? Not going to happen, ever. Be happy if you get 1060 level performance in a future iMac.

Well historically speaking they have been offering the best mobile GPU's in the iMac for years now. the 6970M, 680MX, 780M, M295, and M395X are all the best possible mobile cards that were offered by the time by Nvidia/AMD (they always offered the best card, from whichever vendor they were going with).

Apple could definitely offer an RX 480 in the iMac (it has the same or less wattage/heat as the M395X) without having to do much work. I really hope they also have options for the 490 and/or 1070/1080. Who knows though. I'm not betting on it, just hoping :happy:
2015 13" rMBP: i5 5257U @ 2.7 GHz || Intel Iris 6100 || 8 GB LPDDR3 1866 || 256 GB SSD || macOS Sierra
Gaming Build: R5 1600 @ 3.9 GHz || Asus GTX 1070 8 GB || 16 GB DDR4 3000 || 960 Evo NVMe, 1 TB FireCuda || Win10 Pro
Other: Dell OptiPlex 3040 as VMware host || QNAP TS-228 NAS || iPhone 6S 64GB

#135 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 22 December 2016 - 04:37 PM

View PostCamper-Hunter, on 22 December 2016 - 01:58 AM, said:

When did Apple choose the highest performance GPU in an iMac (or even a Mac Pro for that matter)? Not going to happen, ever. Be happy if you get 1060 level performance in a future iMac.

Well, they did offer the GeForce 4 Ti4600 on the Apple Store which was really damn powerful for the day... at the turn of the century... :P
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#136 Cougar

Cougar

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1353 posts
  • Steam Name:FuzzyPuffin

Posted 22 December 2016 - 05:22 PM

View PostAussieMacGamer, on 21 December 2016 - 01:37 AM, said:

P.S. The USB-C charger sucks. There's no built in cable management, no supplied GPO extender, no magsafe built into the cable. It's so uninspired I hate it and I hate to say it but if Steve Jobs were alive, so would he. The only benefit is that if the cable dies you don't have to buy a whole new adapter.


There are many other benefits to having a standard charging connector. I can now plug in either side of of the laptop. (Finally!)  When I get a TB3 dock, I will be able to change, so that saves me $80 for another adaptor (although TB3 docks are insanely expensive). And the dock will connect video, peripherals, and power over that single cable. Also, third parties will now be an option for power adaptors, or even external batteries.

None of these benefits excuses Apple for not including the extender or developing a USB C MagSafe connector with an indicator light, though. But all things considered, the move is a net win, at least for me.

There was a lot of talk on ATP recently about the lack of cable management...it is puzzling, but I am sure Apple had good reason. Maybe they felt that since you can now unplug the cable, you can easily coil it separately. Or maybe nobody used them. I never did. Personally, the thing I hate most that they've removed is the external battery indicator. But I guess they did this in 2012.

#137 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 22 December 2016 - 08:53 PM

View PostCougar, on 22 December 2016 - 05:22 PM, said:

There was a lot of talk on ATP recently about the lack of cable management...it is puzzling, but I am sure Apple had good reason. Maybe they felt that since you can now unplug the cable, you can easily coil it separately. Or maybe nobody used them. I never did. Personally, the thing I hate most that they've removed is the external battery indicator. But I guess they did this in 2012.

2012 cMBP is still the pinnacle of the "professional" Mac laptop IMO. It can be a legit desktop replacement for a professional on the go without needing dongles or docks, and gets all the "little things" right, right down to the little battery indicator.

The new MBPs are very nice, but they're essentially MacBooks with better CPUs and GPUs. The only thing pro about them is they have more horsepower.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#138 AussieMacGamer

AussieMacGamer

    Owner, 2nd Largest Topic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3087 posts

Posted 23 December 2016 - 07:17 AM

View PostTetsuya, on 22 December 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

TB3 isn't enough to make it work, though. Not enough bandwidth back to the computer to make it work. Razer already has this issue with the Blade Stealth; when using the Core TB3 add-on, when it is piping the feed back to the internal screen, there is a huge framerate hit, that is not present when the eGPU is connected to an external monitor (Linus Tech Tips did a thing on it). Now.. an interesting work-around for an iMac would be if you ran the Video-out from the back fo the GPU Into the iMac via one of the DP/TB ports. As long as they finally support DP 1.4...
So that point in the video was referring to limitations using the Razer Core on a non-Razer machine. The performance hit on loopback mode is around 15% which i wouldn't exactly call a 'huge framerate hit'. Obviously the former is a much more serious problem, but it's not one that will be insurmountable, especially considering that it's an Intel and AMD supported feature (no idea where Nvidia stands). You must also consider that we are talking about a class of product at the moment that is financially unviable for the time being. Only time will tell.I am very doubtful that the new iMacs will have DP1.4. Thunderbolt 3 doesn't support either DP 1.3 or 1.4, and I'm not sure Apple cares to include an extra connector just for customers who don't want to use a Thunderbolt 3 display. Correct me if I'm wrong but for the time being it's either 5k through T3 or two displayport 1.2 connectors. Golly it would be a nice way for them to push iMac sales though...

View PostCougar, on 22 December 2016 - 05:22 PM, said:

There are many other benefits to having a standard charging connector...
All good points. And i think it's a net win for the majority of customers, I think i just set my standards too high, you know, having bought Apple products all these years.

View PostFrost, on 22 December 2016 - 08:53 PM, said:

2012 cMBP is still the pinnacle of the "professional" Mac laptop IMO. It can be a legit desktop replacement for a professional on the go without needing dongles or docks, and gets all the "little things" right, right down to the little battery indicator. The new MBPs are very nice, but they're essentially MacBooks with better CPUs and GPUs. The only thing pro about them is they have more horsepower.
They are extremely similar to the last Macbook Pro and are serviceable for the vast majority of Professional users. None of these points, whilst they add up to it being a lesser product in my opinion, make it less of a product for Pro users. They are essentially Macbook Pro's with less ports, more power, less weight, more I/O potential, and a higher price tag.

IMG Resident Crackpot
"What you need is a dog or a girlfriend, or both, or one in the same!" -Gary Simmons Aka. The Battle Cat
15" Macbook Pro C2D 2.16Ghz ATI X1600 3Gb Ram w/Samsung 840 SSD R.I.P

2015 Mbp 13", 256gb SSD

Windows popsnizzlebox with a 5400rpm HD and a GTX 1060

Now Playing: Player Unknown's Battlegrounds/CS:GO/Rising Storm 2/The Witcher 3 Blood and Wine/Shenmue 1


#139 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 23 December 2016 - 08:13 PM

View PostAussieMacGamer, on 23 December 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

They are extremely similar to the last Macbook Pro and are serviceable for the vast majority of Professional users. None of these points, whilst they add up to it being a lesser product in my opinion, make it less of a product for Pro users. They are essentially Macbook Pro's with less ports, more power, less weight, more I/O potential, and a higher price tag.

My point though is what does the MacBook Pro do now that the MacBook doesn't at this point? You just add an extra Thunderbolt/USB-C port and have more horsepower. That's it. It's got nothing else to offer. If I "upgraded" right now, I would need either a small pile of USB-C dongles to make up for the total lack of connectivity and an external hard drive to make up for the lack of storage capability, or just bite the bullet and buy a $500 all-in-one Sonnet dock to go with it in order to continue using my MacBook Pro as a desktop replacement. Which would add $500 to the overall cost of the machine. I would also need to tote that dock around with me to do offsite work, adding significant needless weight and bulk to my kit in order to shave off a third of an inch and a pound and a half from the machine itself. That, to me, is the most utterly pointless tradeoff conceivable. You've literally swapped functionality for cosmetics.

The MacBook Pro is not a pro machine anymore except for that subset of professionals who need nothing but a USB port. If you fit in that, great. I'm sure lots of other people do too, and Apple is banking on that. For everyone else though it's just a MacBook Plus. It's not very serviceable, it's totally unupgradeable, and its basic connectivity has been reduced with each successive revision until it has gradually gone from stellar bordering on excessive four years ago to almost non-existent today. I'm sure that's the reason the 13" cMBP just kept on selling to a big enough degree they never finally killed it till two months ago. You wanted a MacBook Pro, you buy the older model and hook it up to an external monitor when 13" isn't enough.

Basically, at this point, If I were to buy to have a more powerful Mac with a prettier screen just for work that is 99% software (does not describe me at all) or for home use, I'd absolutely get one. If I were buying to continue using as a computer I do work with, is completely portable at the drop of a hat, and can use as a desktop replacement for the vast majority of tasks, I would not touch it in its current state and don't really consider it to be a machine suitable to using on the job any longer. And yes, that applies to early revisions too. It's just reached its absolute extreme with this new model.

It's like buying a NUC with only two USB ports and no room for a GPU for use as a gaming PC. Sure, you can add all that back via a daisy chain of external docks and adapters to re-add your networking, graphics, extra ports, electricity, and storage. At which point you have a heavier, bulkier, messier setup with potential I/O bottlenecks. The point is why would you want to?

I feel like we're eventually going to reach a point where Jony Ive sells us a SoC with a Thunderbolt port, singing its praises for being utterly microscopic. And then you have to buy an entire machine of peripherals to build up around it anyway so what was the point.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#140 AussieMacGamer

AussieMacGamer

    Owner, 2nd Largest Topic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3087 posts

Posted 23 December 2016 - 09:56 PM

View PostFrost, on 23 December 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

My point though is what does the MacBook Pro do now that the MacBook doesn't at this point?

I agree with you to the extent that I don't find it an attractive product. But I cease to see how it's lack of ports makes it so much less of a pro computer than the last Macbook Pro. I could kit my entire setup out with USB-A to C adapters for less than 20USD (if I really cared that much about having to not carry the adapter around that is, leaving all the cables with adapters on the end of them), If I was that reliant on a camera that used SD I would use the computer connect mode and the cable the camera comes with; the period of time where Macbooks came with decent value storage options was not long, i've been relying on external storage with laptops for a while now (which are cheap, reliable and portable with good support to boot.), the number of people worldwide with an absolute need for TOSLINK out of a mac would have to now be sub-100.

People in your use case scenario are in the absolute minority. I think it's unfortunate too, how I would love to have a Mac with modular user serviceable SATA slots , RAM and repairability again. But that's no longer a reality, Apple is a publicly trading company answerable to it's shareholders and their priority is with the majority of customers who still love what their putting out.

I think that includes professionals. The MacBook Pro delivers faster internals, premium connectivity, options for more ram, faster graphics and larger screen sizes. Same way it always has, and the PowerBook before it. Apple are just focusing on their core audience in order to pursue profits and push the product into the future, and that core audience is not people who make a living off off having a complete desktop replacement that can travel anywhere with them at any time with no extras no questions asked.

I agree with you that it sucks, but the argument that it's no longer a pro machine is just hot air

IMG Resident Crackpot
"What you need is a dog or a girlfriend, or both, or one in the same!" -Gary Simmons Aka. The Battle Cat
15" Macbook Pro C2D 2.16Ghz ATI X1600 3Gb Ram w/Samsung 840 SSD R.I.P

2015 Mbp 13", 256gb SSD

Windows popsnizzlebox with a 5400rpm HD and a GTX 1060

Now Playing: Player Unknown's Battlegrounds/CS:GO/Rising Storm 2/The Witcher 3 Blood and Wine/Shenmue 1






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Macbook, Pro, Late 2016