AMD reveals Radeon Pro 400 series GPU specs, as used in new MacBook Pro

Spoiler: Don't expect to do much gaming on your shiny new MacBook Pro.

Read the whole story

 

[mpat]

That said, the RX 460 and Nvidia's Pascal GPUs are significantly more power hungry than the Radeon Pro 450. Apple has typically favoured power-efficiency over raw performance, and with Nvidia currently only offering its latest 14nm Pascal architecture in beefier chips, the Radeon Pro 400 series was likely the best fit.

AMD recently released updated versions of its Polaris 11 chips with lower TDP. They were previously only available for embedded chips - most likely this is the same silicon. I'll see if I can find the link with that release.

 

[psb]

I think that trying to claim that Nvidia is offering mobile Pascal GPUs is taking it a bit far.

Nvidia are offering desktop GPUs in a mobile form factor, with mostly desktop TDPs. And if you think £180 is a lot to upgrade to the RP460 then the 50 minute battery life 1080 upgrade would have cost around £1000!

GP107 will likely be available in real mobile form factors within the next couple of months, likely in a 35W SKU that also clocks down a lot from the 75W desktop SKUs using this chip.

 

[Lonyo]

those hoping to do a bit of gaming on their shiny new MacBook Pro will probably struggle.

Because of the limited selection of games? If you're gaming, then you're probably not buying a Mac, or you are playing games for which these GPUs are probably sufficient.

 

[BoonMeister]

I admit it's a bit of a shame, but I'd hazard a guess that the average macbook user will probably prefer the power savings vs game performance. On top of the fact that a more 'serious' gamer probably isn't going to be using a macbook as their primary device anyway, due to availability of games and value for money.

 

[keltor]

Pretty sure every game I play will play fine on them, who's really looking for MAJOR gaming on a laptop? Sure a game of LoL will be fun (and it will run just fine) and so will the casual games that make up the majority of gaming.

 

[Random John Smith Guy]

Nvidia currently only offering its latest 14nm Pascal architecture

Most of NVIDIA's Pascal chips use the 16nm Finfet fab by TSMC, with the exception of the GTX 1050(Ti) which uses the 14nm Finfet fab process by Samsung.

 

[Mungus the Unhyphenated]

Well, there was a time when you could run Boot Camp and reboot from your "work" Mac OS environment into a native Windows partition and do some gaming, then switch back. That worked fine when Apple had decent Boot Camp drivers for their devices under Windows, and Nvidia graphics chipsets which could at least run games at mid- to mid-high detail or better, depending on the game's vintage.

Between a lack of love for Boot Camp drivers and dumping Nvidia graphics in favor of Intel onboard or AMD graphics, that ship seems to have sailed several years ago. Retro-gaming might be possible, but AMD graphics drivers and older games can be flaky, leaving just "casual" games for the most part. No Nvidia mobile graphics has been kind of a punch to the gut.:/

 

[Infinity4011]

psb[/url]":11nngrlg]I think that trying to claim that Nvidia is offering mobile Pascal GPUs is taking it a bit far.

Nvidia are offering desktop GPUs in a mobile form factor, with mostly desktop TDPs. And if you think £180 is a lot to upgrade to the RP460 then the 50 minute battery life 1080 upgrade would have cost around £1000!

GP107 will likely be available in real mobile form factors within the next couple of months, likely in a 35W SKU that also clocks down a lot from the 75W desktop SKUs using this chip.

While the GPU is not a mobile variant, IIRC they can be configured to have a lower TDP and thus a more mobile-like power draw. I'd rather have a 1060 than a RX 460 for gaming, but until someone gets ahold of a MBP and does some FP-based benchmarks I will withhold my judgment on whether an AMD card is better for compute tasks. They usually are though, since nVidia has sacrificed FP16 and 32 performance to push people towards their own professional cards.

 

[random_slacker]

I wish Razer Core were Macbook compatible. That would solve ALL apple gaming problems.

 

[mrseb]

Random John Smith Guy[/url]":2975jktu]

Nvidia currently only offering its latest 14nm Pascal architecture

Most of NVIDIA's Pascal chips use the 16nm Finfet fab by TSMC, with the exception of the GTX 1050(Ti) which uses the 14nm Finfet fab process by Samsung.

Yep, correct - will fix.

 

[pokrface]

those hoping to do a bit of gaming on their shiny new MacBook Pro will probably struggle.

Because of the limited selection of games? If you're gaming, then you're probably not buying a Mac, or you are playing games for which these GPUs are probably sufficient.

I had a long twitter back-n-forth yesterday with someone who seemed dead-set on believing that the Radeon 4xx would make the MBP a viable VR gaming platform—just grab a bunch of dongles, bootcamp into Windows, hook up a Rift, and boom!

Spoiler: it's not a great VR gaming platform.

That's the kind of thing people need to keep in perspective. For casual gaming? No problem. Fire up some Civ6? No problem. VR? Nope.

 

[rickh59954]

That $100 graphics upgrade on the 15 in MBP is looking even more necessary - makes me suspicious of those graphics stats they showed

 

[petersphilo]

And here i was cautiously optimistic that Apple had renewed its interest in the 'Pro' aspect of the MacBook Pro by including seemingly capable dedicated GPUs in *all* its 15-inch models (something they had not done for some time)...

It's sort of ironic that Tim Cook was quoted as saying that VR will be a game changer; seems Apple is resolutely excluding itself from that game, and, as usual, only the faithful 'Pro' users suffer...

There will eventually come a point when Pro users' dislike for Windows is superseded by their inability to get work done because their beautiful-super-extra-thin rigs are woefully underpowered...
Don't forget that this means less development resources, which means even less professionals, and even less dev, etc.. etc..

What is this obsession with getting extra-thin and light hardware at the expense of everything else?!?!
Especially when there *is* (technically) an 'non-pro' line that is supposed to address these concerns of aesthetics over performance!!

it really sucks watching this slow-motion computer-icide that Apple has been performing on itself for so long!!!
Grrr!!

 

[flunk]

ZippyPeanut[/url]":llr313t0]And that's not much of an option. I've never liked Macs for the same reason I've never liked Alienware: both companies have historically sold average hardware for advanced-hardware prices.

I don't know about that, Alienwares are generally well-constructed and are normally easy to work on. If you plan on upgrading or servicing your laptop yourself it's a definite benefit that almost all brands of laptop don't have. The only two others that come to mind are Clevo and Lenovo's Thinkpad series. There are probably a few others, but it's rare.

 

[petersphilo]

vlam[/url]":1dayex8z]It's only ironic until you realize that there are 4 USB-c ports, that apple loves accessories, and that external GPUs are all related. I'd bet that apple is trying to make external GPUs to work so that they can sell them as $1000 accessories to suddenly make your underpowered laptop capable of solid computing and graphics processing.

i was under the impression that even Thunderbolt 3 doesn't provide the bandwidth necessary to make a powerful external GPU solution interesting...

Even then, that's besides the point..
There are plenty of gaming-oriented companies that make acceptably light, thin and sexy laptops that still offer good GPU performance..

oh, and @chipguy:
i couldn't disagree more!
there have been some great games for the Mac (my favorite being X-Plane); clearly the abundance is not there, but you can't say that the Mac does not offer any gaming..
Remember that Halo was originally developed for the Mac..

 

[sickr1rider]

I am only interested for my hackintosh sake. I have been holding off on upgrading my graphics card in hopes that apple may jump ship to Nvidia. Doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon. The only two things I wanted to happen at the keynote and they both fell through. No Nvidia pascal support and no 27" Apple Display makes me a sad panda.

 

[patched_conic]

chipguy[/url]":1v1z99u7]Gaming and laptop don't belong in the same sentence.

Gaming and Mac don't belong in the same sentence.

Gaming and Mac laptop is a non sequitur squared.

All of this is not true. Looking at my Steam library, about two thirds (91/148) of my games are Mac compatible, an amount that's only bound to increase given that most game engines are multiplatform these days. The OS is perfectly capable. The hardware, even the laptops, could easily be if only they included a semi-decent GPU.

That said, I've logged lots of hours in KSP even on my Intel Iris graphics Macbook. (With the CPU fan running in hair dryer mode, but still.)

I wish Apple would make a beefy, generic, no-nonsense computer again. Not something ridiculously small/thin and super integrated, but a nice box where I can put in a normal graphics card, change/upgrade the RAM and maybe even the CPU. And yeah, something I can plug a VR headset into. Maybe this could be their next Mac Pro?

 

[NaeemTHM]

Mungus the Unhyphenated[/url]":3bthihp8]Between a lack of love for Boot Camp drivers and dumping Nvidia graphics in favor of Intel onboard or AMD graphics, that ship seems to have sailed several years ago.:/

I agree dumping Nvidia is a damn shame, but Macs still play VERY nicely with Boot Camp! I just did a fresh install of Windows 10 on my MacBook Pro and I swear it runs better than on my Surface Pro 2. I'm guessing if you're willing to plunk down an ungodly amount of money for that 15-inch Macbook Pro, you'll get some decent gaming in on a Windows 10 Boot Camp.

Edit: That said, you probably shouldn't be buying a ~$2,700 laptop to play games at low to medium settings people.

 

[petersphilo]

Quick note

The high-end 15-inch MacBook Pro (...) can be configured to use the Radeon Pro 460

Actually, it appears both new 15-inch models can be upgraded to the Radeon Pro 460...
The older 2015 model still available on the store cannot..
(edited for clarity)

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

I suspect this will not be the number one reason for buying these machines.

 

[boondox]

patched_conic[/url]":3oo4ecrs]
I wish Apple would make a beefy, generic, no-nonsense computer again. Not something ridiculously small/thin and super integrated, but a nice box where I can put in a normal graphics card, change/upgrade the RAM and maybe even the CPU. And yeah, something I can plug a VR headset into. Maybe this could be their next Mac Pro?

I'd love this ^^^ in a 15" laptop at a decent price (=< $2000).

Seems its a bit much to ask these days, though.

 

[KAL1989]

patched_conic[/url]":woy6vgot]

chipguy[/url]":woy6vgot]Gaming and laptop don't belong in the same sentence.

Gaming and Mac don't belong in the same sentence.

Gaming and Mac laptop is a non sequitur squared.

All of this is not true. Looking at my Steam library, about two thirds (91/148) of my games are Mac compatible, an amount that's only bound to increase given that most game engines are multiplatform these days. The OS is perfectly capable. The hardware, even the laptops, could easily be if only they included a semi-decent GPU.

That said, I've logged lots of hours in KSP even on my Intel Iris graphics Macbook. (With the CPU fan running in hair dryer mode, but still.)

I wish Apple would make a beefy, generic, no-nonsense computer again. Not something ridiculously small/thin and super integrated, but a nice box where I can put in a normal graphics card, change/upgrade the RAM and maybe even the CPU. And yeah, something I can plug a VR headset into. Maybe this could be their next Mac Pro?

I have 600 games and only little over 200 of them are compatible, of which very few of my higher demand games actually support Mac.

I am not against gaming on a Mac, but lets be real here. The combined market share of Mac and Linux machines are not enough to convince most devs to make Mac/Linux ports of higher demand games. Just because the tools exist does not mean devs will use them. They still need to be tested, especially because most games do not use one middleware exclusively. Hell many of the high demand games that are ported are done in a wrapper. They aren't even done natively.

 

[Elrabin]

psb[/url]":2oqi04t6]I think that trying to claim that Nvidia is offering mobile Pascal GPUs is taking it a bit far.

Nvidia are offering desktop GPUs in a mobile form factor, with mostly desktop TDPs. And if you think £180 is a lot to upgrade to the RP460 then the 50 minute battery life 1080 upgrade would have cost around £1000!

GP107 will likely be available in real mobile form factors within the next couple of months, likely in a 35W SKU that also clocks down a lot from the 75W desktop SKUs using this chip.

The laptop GTX 1060 has the same TDP as the previous GTX 960m but FAR higher relative performance

The laptop GTX 1080/70/60 are within 5% of their desktop variant(stock clocks) in terms of performance but substantially less TDP

The desktop GTX 1080 is 180 watts, the mobile is less than 135 watts

1070 desktop is 165 watts, mobile is 115 watts

1060 desktop is 120 watts, mobile is 75 watts

I would expect a 1050 mobile shortly and for it to be 45 watts

Other companies have been able to fit well-cooled 1060s in similar footprint laptops

 

[KAL1989]

Elrabin[/url]":3jlohiok]
Other companies have been able to fit well-cooled 1060s in similar footprint laptops

How is the battery life?

If one thing is true about Apple, they do not compromise battery life for boosted performance.

 

[Static and Noise]

KAL1989[/url]":28g917pi]

Elrabin[/url]":28g917pi]
Other companies have been able to fit well-cooled 1060s in similar footprint laptops

How is the battery life?

If one thing is true about Apple, they do not compromise battery life for boosted performance.

Thinness, OTOH...

 

[Elrabin]

patched_conic[/url]":10pvns08]

chipguy[/url]":10pvns08]Gaming and laptop don't belong in the same sentence.

Gaming and Mac don't belong in the same sentence.

Gaming and Mac laptop is a non sequitur squared.

All of this is not true. Looking at my Steam library, about two thirds (91/148) of my games are Mac compatible, an amount that's only bound to increase given that most game engines are multiplatform these days. The OS is perfectly capable. The hardware, even the laptops, could easily be if only they included a semi-decent GPU.

That said, I've logged lots of hours in KSP even on my Intel Iris graphics Macbook. (With the CPU fan running in hair dryer mode, but still.)

I wish Apple would make a beefy, generic, no-nonsense computer again. Not something ridiculously small/thin and super integrated, but a nice box where I can put in a normal graphics card, change/upgrade the RAM and maybe even the CPU. And yeah, something I can plug a VR headset into. Maybe this could be their next Mac Pro?

Sadly it will never happen.

Apple has eschewed performance and capability for aesthetics in the mac pro, they haven't refreshed it in over 3 years.

That's insane and the competition has passed them by.

What graphic professional is going to buy a system that has a 3 year old CPU and a workstation GPU that was antiquated when it launched(the Firepro in it was a rebranded 7000 series GPU)

Adobe creative suite benefits ENORMOUSLY from Nvidia's Pascal, i've seen an improvement 4x in render times from my old 970 to my new 1080 when i'm doing heavy effects in Adobe AfterEffects

 

[Elrabin]

Static and Noise[/url]":2garq77u]

KAL1989[/url]":2garq77u]

Elrabin[/url]":2garq77u]
Other companies have been able to fit well-cooled 1060s in similar footprint laptops

How is the battery life?

If one thing is true about Apple, they do not compromise battery life for boosted performance.

Thinness, OTOH...

They all feature switchable graphics. So the GPU only spools up when you need it.

I have a 15" laptop that's actually smaller than a Macbook Pro 15 with a 960m(same TDP as a GTX 1060 laptop GPU) and a quad core Skylake CPU and i get 8+ hours of office productivity out of it.

Start gaming and the battery life plummets to 2.25 hours.

 

[Abhi Beckert]

Don't expect to do much gaming on your shiny new MacBook Pro

Pokrface[/url]":1khpac1i]For casual gaming? No problem. Fire up some Civ6? No problem.

Did you actually try it?

I wouldn't consider myself a "casual" gamer – I play games almost every day.

Since my desktop kicked the bucket and I haven't bothered replacing it yet (waiting for the GTX 1050). In the mean time my previous gen low end Retina MacBook Pro (i5 with Intel Iris GPU) is perfectly fine. Depending on the game I'm often able to run native res (2560x1600) with high frame rates. I can never max out the settings, but who cares? It's still the same game.

My only complaint is the fan noise, which apparently is better in the new ones. Are you saying the newer ones are slower?

 

[apoclypse]

Lonyo[/url]":3i2wpe9o]

those hoping to do a bit of gaming on their shiny new MacBook Pro will probably struggle.

Because of the limited selection of games? If you're gaming, then you're probably not buying a Mac, or you are playing games for which these GPUs are probably sufficient.

There are a lot of games on macOS and that has only increased over the years. The newest ones are usually PC first for sure but they usually end up on the appstore or steam a year later. Mad Max was just released on macOS. I got Shadow of Mordor about a year after it was released on PC and consoles. Ark is cross platform and runs on macOS. Civ 6 is cross platform and run on macOS. If you want to game there is a lot there. If you are talking about the latest and greatest then no, though if you own a PC that really doesn't matter the game will be new to you anyway.

In my case I just use Steam in-home streaming from my X99 rig. I get the best of both worlds. Get to play on my nice by iMac screen (or MBP too) and get to play the latest games with nice graphics. In-home streaming is the future imo. I think Valve should drop the whole steam machine thing as a console wannabe and focus on making them stream server instead. Put one out of the way in a rack or closet somewhere and game from anywhere in your house at the highest quality.

 

[KAL1989]

Elrabin[/url]":1xvzge8y]

Static and Noise[/url]":1xvzge8y]

KAL1989[/url]":1xvzge8y]

Elrabin[/url]":1xvzge8y]
Other companies have been able to fit well-cooled 1060s in similar footprint laptops

How is the battery life?

If one thing is true about Apple, they do not compromise battery life for boosted performance.

Thinness, OTOH...

They all feature switchable graphics. So the GPU only spools up when you need it.

I have a 15" laptop that's actually smaller than a Macbook Pro 15 with a 960m(same TDP as a GTX 1060 laptop GPU) and a quad core Skylake CPU and i get 8+ hours of office productivity out of it.

Start gaming and the battery life plummets to 2.25 hours.

And this laptop is?

The Macbook pro 15 that was announced is not the same size as the one before it. It is a lot smaller and thinner. It also weighs a full pound less. The Ghost Pro and Dell XPS 15 are larger than this laptop. The non touch Dell XPS 15 also has a lower resolution display. Apple's battery claims are also often done at 50% Screen brightness (wonder if this is still true).

Another thing worth mentioning is the way Apple does battery tests. They tend to do it browsing the web or watching video. Basic office use tends to shoot the battery claims above what Apple claims. My 2011 Macbook with basic office use often went above the original 7 hours of battery life claim when it was new.

Edit: Screen brightness and not 50% battery life.

 

[Drum]

mpat[/url]":341bcuyn]

That said, the RX 460 and Nvidia's Pascal GPUs are significantly more power hungry than the Radeon Pro 450. Apple has typically favoured power-efficiency over raw performance, and with Nvidia currently only offering its latest 14nm Pascal architecture in beefier chips, the Radeon Pro 400 series was likely the best fit.

AMD recently released updated versions of its Polaris 11 chips with lower TDP. They were previously only available for embedded chips - most likely this is the same silicon. I'll see if I can find the link with that release.

If I remember correctly, wasn't that just a rumor?

One thing of note to everyone by the way - the Radeon Pro 460 has 16 CUs - that's 4 more than the RX 460. There's probably space somewhere for AMD to spin a fully enabled RX 465 if they need more performance to compete with the 1050.

KAL1989[/url]":341bcuyn]

Elrabin[/url]":341bcuyn]

Static and Noise[/url]":341bcuyn]

KAL1989[/url]":341bcuyn]

Elrabin[/url]":341bcuyn]
Other companies have been able to fit well-cooled 1060s in similar footprint laptops

How is the battery life?

If one thing is true about Apple, they do not compromise battery life for boosted performance.

Thinness, OTOH...

They all feature switchable graphics. So the GPU only spools up when you need it.

I have a 15" laptop that's actually smaller than a Macbook Pro 15 with a 960m(same TDP as a GTX 1060 laptop GPU) and a quad core Skylake CPU and i get 8+ hours of office productivity out of it.

Start gaming and the battery life plummets to 2.25 hours.

And this laptop is?

The Macbook pro 15 that was announced is not the same size as the one before it. It is a lot smaller and thinner. It also weighs a full pound less. The Ghost Pro and Dell XPS 15 are larger than this laptop. The non touch Dell XPS 15 also has a lower resolution display. Apple's battery claims are also often done at 50% battery life (wonder if this is still true).

Another thing worth mentioning is the way Apple does battery tests. They tend to do it browsing the web or watching video. Basic office use tends to shoot the battery claims above what Apple claims. My 2011 Macbook with basic office use often went above the original 7 hours of battery life claim when it was new.

It's a bit of a stretch to claim the XPS 15 is larger than this laptop. The Macbook Pro 15 has a WDH of 13.75"x9.48"x.61" for a volume of 79.5 cubic inches. The XPS 15 is 14.06"x9.27"x0.45-0.66". If you use the Macbook's height to approximate the average, you actually get the exact same volume. Even if the XPS 15 was a solid block at 0.66" high, it's still <10%.

I'm not saying that Apple didn't do a decent job here, but it's no quantum leap over the competition like the original rMBP was. The XPS 15 has arguably better ports, better performance (960M), up to 32GB of memory, and the FHD version is rated for up to 17 hours. The QHD version likely lands around 10-11. Again, I'm not calling out the MBP as bad, but it's not leaps and bounds above the competition like you traditionally expect Apple to be when they release a new laptop.

 

[salamanderjuice]

Abhi Beckert[/url]":k1gwyohb]

Don't expect to do much gaming on your shiny new MacBook Pro

Pokrface[/url]":k1gwyohb]For casual gaming? No problem. Fire up some Civ6? No problem.

Did you actually try it?

I wouldn't consider myself a "casual" gamer – I play games almost every day.

Since my desktop kicked the bucket and I haven't bothered replacing it yet (waiting for the GTX 1050). In the mean time my previous gen low end Retina MacBook Pro (i5 with Intel Iris GPU) is perfectly fine. Depending on the game I'm often able to run native res (2560x1600) with high frame rates. I can never max out the settings, but who cares? It's still the same game.

My only complaint is the fan noise, which apparently is better in the new ones. Are you saying the newer ones are slower?

What exactly are you playing at 2560x1600 with high frame rates on an Iris Pro? Counter-strike source? LoL? On Low?

I barely get 60FPS in Doom 2016 on medium at 1080p with a Geforce 960M, quad core i7 and 16GB of RAM. And while the 960M isn't the greatest mobile card it still eats the Iris Pro. It really depends on what games you are playing.

 

[Elrabin]

KAL1989[/url]"af50ces]

Elrabin[/url]"af50ces]

Static and Noise[/url]"af50ces]

KAL1989[/url]"af50ces]

Elrabin[/url]"af50ces]
Other companies have been able to fit well-cooled 1060s in similar footprint laptops

How is the battery life?

If one thing is true about Apple, they do not compromise battery life for boosted performance.

Thinness, OTOH...

They all feature switchable graphics. So the GPU only spools up when you need it.

I have a 15" laptop that's actually smaller than a Macbook Pro 15 with a 960m(same TDP as a GTX 1060 laptop GPU) and a quad core Skylake CPU and i get 8+ hours of office productivity out of it.

Start gaming and the battery life plummets to 2.25 hours.

And this laptop is?

The Macbook pro 15 that was announced is not the same size as the one before it. It is a lot smaller and thinner. It also weighs a full pound less. The Ghost Pro and Dell XPS 15 are larger than this laptop. The non touch Dell XPS 15 also has a lower resolution display. Apple's battery claims are also often done at 50% battery life (wonder if this is still true).

Another thing worth mentioning is the way Apple does battery tests. They tend to do it browsing the web or watching video. Basic office use tends to shoot the battery claims above what Apple claims. My 2011 Macbook with basic office use often went above the original 7 hours of battery life claim when it was new.

Brand new Macbook Pro 15

Height: 0.61 inch (1.55 cm)
Width: 13.75 inches (34.93 cm)
Depth: 9.48 inches (24.07 cm)
Weight: 4.02 pounds (1.83 kg)

Macbook Pro 15 (2015)

Height: 0.71 inch (1.8 cm)
Width: 14.13 inches (35.89 cm)
Depth: 9.73 inches (24.71 cm)
Weight: 4.49 pounds (2.04 kg)

XPS 15 9550(with 3200x1800 touch display)

Height: 0.45-0.66 inch
Width: 14.06 inch
Depth: 9.27 inch

Weight: 4.4 lbs(with 84Whr battery, SSD and 3200x1800 touch display)

So, the XPS 15 is smaller than the 2015 Macbook Pro in all dimensions and is lighter even when configured with superior options

It's slightly taller and wider than the 2016 MBP, but is still not as deep

 

[MindBlown16]

"Don't expect to do much gaming on your shiny new MacBook Pro."

This article compares the GPU to non-mobile GPUs or GPUs that function with a bigger Thermal Capacity. But that is only half of the story. It's also important to understand how it compares to Intel's on-chip offering.

So it's not even as powerful as the RX460, but if it is twice as fast as Intel's solution, then it is still an important step in performance.

I'm actually quite shocked at the lengths Apple goes to make their laptops thinner... even making chips thinner. Wow.

 

[atlantico]

Hi Mark!, this is Amy from Nvidia PR, thanks for comparing AMD professional GPUs to laptop gaming GPUs from Nvidia, but you only mention the company three times in this article. Of course we realize that gaming GPUs from Nvidia have nothing to do with professional GPUs from AMD, but five times is per our contract.

Don't cross us again Mark. We own you.

Cheers!
Amy,
Nvidia PR consultant.