or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: In-store signage outs speed-bumped MacBook Pros, 16GB of RAM to come standard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: In-store signage outs speed-bumped MacBook Pros, 16GB of RAM to come standard

post #1 of 60
Thread Starter 
A photo out of China on Sunday supposedly shows iPad-based Apple Store signage detailing the anticipated 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display refresh, with an updated processor lineup and standard 16GB of RAM across the board.




According to a post on Chinese Apple forum Feng.com, the image originates from Apple's recently opened Paradise Walk outlet in Chongqing and purportedly reveals detailed specs for the next 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro, the most significant being a boost in standard memory to 16GB even for the base model.

As seen above, the reported iPad signage shows three configurations for Apple's top-of-the-line laptop, each getting faster Intel Core i7 chips, more RAM and consistent pricing. According to the chart, Apple will apply its usual 200MHz CPU speed bump compared to current models, while the low-end variant is to double its memory allotment from 8GB to 16GB of RAM.

The entry-level Retina MacBook Pro will supposedly feature a 2.2GHz Intel Core i7 CPU, 16GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD and Intel's integrated Iris Pro graphics. A mid-tier version gets a 2.5GHz Intel Core i7 processor and tacks on an Nvidia GeForce GT 750M discrete graphics card with 2GB of GDDR5 memory.

The top-end model appears to be a maxed-out custom configuration with 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 CPU, 16GB of memory, 1TB SSD and Intel Iris Pro and Nvidia GeForce GT 750M graphics.

If the signage is to be believed, Apple will keep Retina MacBook Pro prices steady, as the chart reflects current low-, mid- and high-tier pricing of 14,288 yuan, 18,688 yuan and 23,688 yuan, respectively.

The photo fails to show an estimated release date for the updated 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display lineup, though KGI analyst Ming-Chi Kuo in April predicted the laptop refresh to come late in the third quarter, possibly in August of September.
post #2 of 60
I think that's a great move to have them all at 16GB given that it's soldered. These are productive laptops so that amount is ideal. The only thing that seems odd is why they'd stick with the 750M when the 850M is available. It may not be all that odd if they are planning to phase out dedicated GPUs though. With 16GB of RAM, they can boost the IGP to have 2GB of VRAM like the dedicated model. Sticking with the 750M means that Iris Pro still looks strong next to it. Then when Broadwell hits, the performance boost to Iris Pro makes dGPUs irrelevant.
post #3 of 60

Si-si-si-si-sixteen. Standard. Yes.

 

And apparently 2 gigs of vRAM on the ones with dedicated chips.

 

My poor, poor, Penryn pre-unibody. Will have to suck it up for several more years; I can’t justify one of these yet. :p 

post #4 of 60
If they did this I would buy a MacBook Pro right away, mine is beginning to get outdated and could use 16g's instead of 4.
post #5 of 60
This is a good change. Hopefully they will bump the baseline on the lower-end models to 8 GB as well. 4 GB is not a usable amount of RAM on modern OS X versions, and since it's non-upgradable, 8 GB really needs to be the minimum.
post #6 of 60

Decent update. I suspect the no 850M graphics is either because of thermal constraints, or they're simply waiting for a big update with them. Cool that the high end has a 1TB flash storage too. The 16GB was much needed IMO since you can't update it. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #7 of 60

200Mhz speed bump?

I remember The Game of SKUs that Intel used to play, in the days before AMD Athlon whooped their asses: Intel would dish out these artificial 33Mhz or 66Mhz "speed bumps" when their chips were fully capable of jumping several such bumps each generation in order to squeeze the most money out of each generation. When AMD shattered Intel's speed ceiling by announcing--then selling--the first 1Ghz Athlon. Then Intel scrambled to match that speed (they lagged a bit, but they did it), then went backwards and carved out more SKUs to fill these "market gaps" between 566Mhz and 1000Mhz. The result were things like 700, 733, 750, 800Mhz chips and so on.

 

I don't blame them. But milking these artificial speed bumps felt like it slowed progress of Moore's law and was fleecing the consumer. Intel was also the company that (before AMD Athlon 64 dropped) had planned to keep desktops on 32-bit x86 for another decade, and planned to move only servers to the expensive and underperforming Itanium chip in their 64-bit roadmap. The subsequent release and scaling of the impressive AMD Athlon 64 chips crushed that. Without competition, Intel is the absolute worst enemy of technology progress.

 

When I read about a 200Mhz speed bump, I was reminded of those days when Intel ruled the PC industry. Looks like those days are back, what with AMD being completely relegated to the low-end of the x86 market.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #8 of 60
When did they start soldering in the RAM on MacBook Pros? How did I miss this this?
Is 16 GB the maximum anyway so user access is irrelevant?
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #9 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post

This is a good change. Hopefully they will bump the baseline on the lower-end models to 8 GB as well. 4 GB is not a usable amount of RAM on modern OS X versions, and since it's non-upgradable, 8 GB really needs to be the minimum.
Agreed. Mavericks is great but I upgraded everything in my office to at least 8 to get it really humming along, with the exception of a few 2007 iMacs that only handle 6.
post #10 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

When did they start soldering in the RAM on MacBook Pros? How did I miss this this?
Is 16 GB the maximum anyway so user access is irrelevant?

Mid 2012 Retina
post #11 of 60
Hopefully this means the next generations of MBAs will have 8 Gig stock.
post #12 of 60
I upgraded my iMac to 16G from 4G recently and it is like a totally different machine.

Both mavericks and Yosemite need more than 4G. The number of system processes is exploding.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #13 of 60
Nice to get the speed bump and memory but it seems like the pricing is the same for all three models but previously the difference included upgrading from 8 to 16 for the mid. Now all you get is the processor/ hard drive.

I would like to see the 256->512 ssd drop to $200.

Hope the upgrade the 1299 iMac to 16 also. I'd pick up a couple.
post #14 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I upgraded my iMac to 16G from 4G recently and it is like a totally different machine.

Both mavericks and Yosemite need more than 4G. The number of system processes is exploding.

The newer 21.5 iMacs memory is ridiculous to get to so 16 is really the minimum i would buy now.
Edited by CustomTB - 7/27/14 at 7:40pm
post #15 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Both mavericks and Yosemite need more than 4G. The number of system processes is exploding.

 

My Mavericks machine is using 4.1 GB of RAM in an idle state -- i.e. no foreground apps running at all, with only a few third-party background processes (Adobe CC stuff) -- so I guess you're right, 4 isn't enough anymore.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #16 of 60
Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post
The newer iMacs memory is soldered in also so 16 is really the minimum i would buy.

 

Since when? It just doesn’t have a door.

post #17 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

My Mavericks machine is using 4.1 GB of RAM in an idle state -- i.e. no foreground apps running at all, with only a few third-party background processes (Adobe CC stuff) -- so I guess you're right, 4 isn't enough anymore.

There appears to be something wrong with your system.

 

My 2010 Mac mini (with 8GB RAM) running Mavericks uses 1.65GB after a boot.

 

I bought last summer's MacBook Air with a maxed-out 8GB of RAM. Assuming their CPUs are supported, I expect both machines to be able to run whatever OS X version in 2017 quite well with 8GB of RAM.

post #18 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 

200Mhz speed bump?

I remember The Game of SKUs that Intel used to play, in the days before AMD Athlon whooped their asses: Intel would dish out these artificial 33Mhz or 66Mhz "speed bumps" when their chips were fully capable of jumping several such bumps each generation in order to squeeze the most money out of each generation. When AMD shattered Intel's speed ceiling by announcing--then selling--the first 1Ghz Athlon. Then Intel scrambled to match that speed (they lagged a bit, but they did it), then went backwards and carved out more SKUs to fill these "market gaps" between 566Mhz and 1000Mhz. The result were things like 700, 733, 750, 800Mhz chips and so on.

 

I don't blame them. But milking these artificial speed bumps felt like it slowed progress of Moore's law and was fleecing the consumer. Intel was also the company that (before AMD Athlon 64 dropped) had planned to keep desktops on 32-bit x86 for another decade, and planned to move only servers to the expensive and underperforming Itanium chip in their 64-bit roadmap. The subsequent release and scaling of the impressive AMD Athlon 64 chips crushed that. Without competition, Intel is the absolute worst enemy of technology progress.

 

When I read about a 200Mhz speed bump, I was reminded of those days when Intel ruled the PC industry. Looks like those days are back, what with AMD being completely relegated to the low-end of the x86 market.

 

Or, the 200MHz speedbump is due to the recently announced SKUs which Intel is offering since Broadwell is delayed. No one wants to buy year-old hardware. Price points are the same for these as the processors launched last year.

post #19 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Since when? It just doesn’t have a door.
. You're right... My bad... It is slotted... Just have to test it apart.
Edited by CustomTB - 7/27/14 at 7:38pm
post #20 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post
 

There appears to be something wrong with your system.

 

My 2010 Mac mini (with 8GB RAM) running Mavericks uses 1.65GB after a boot.

 

Hmm. I just rebooted to see what I get "fresh" and it's around 3GB. Better than the 4 it was using after working all day, but still nowhere near as lean as yours. Mid-2009 17" MacBook Pro.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #21 of 60

Apple continues to sell 4GB Macs. There's really no explanation why your system is chewing up 3-4GB of memory. Hell, I have a 2006 vintage MacBook that uses less than a gigabyte of main memory running OS X Lion.

 

Your system is heavily damaged.

 

I suggest a visit to the nearest Genius Bar or a complete disk drive wipe/reinstall.

 

Good luck.


Edited by mpantone - 7/27/14 at 8:17pm
post #22 of 60
Interestingly seems only difference between last years and this year is you automatically get 16 gb ram no matter the model.

Maybe Mac book air will only have 8 and 16 gb ram options as well.
post #23 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I upgraded my iMac to 16G from 4G recently and it is like a totally different machine.

Both mavericks and Yosemite need more than 4G. The number of system processes is exploding.

😉 I "upgraded" my Mac Mini server to 16 gb RAM - against the Apple Gods wishes but hey I had to do it 😢! Some tech support peeps at Apple cut me slack and some don't 1frown.gif
post #24 of 60
I love to see Touch ID or some BT-based proximity sensor that can un/lock my Macs based on some wearable on my person.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #25 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think that's a great move to have them all at 16GB given that it's soldered. These are productive laptops so that amount is ideal. The only thing that seems odd is why they'd stick with the 750M when the 850M is available. It may not be all that odd if they are planning to phase out dedicated GPUs though. With 16GB of RAM, they can boost the IGP to have 2GB of VRAM like the dedicated model. Sticking with the 750M means that Iris Pro still looks strong next to it. Then when Broadwell hits, the performance boost to Iris Pro makes dGPUs irrelevant.

That should be the baseline, but a BTO with a 32GB soldiered option.
post #26 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

Apple continues to sell 4GB Macs. There's really no explanation why your system is chewing up 3-4GB of memory. Hell, I have a 2006 vintage MacBook that uses less than a gigabyte of main memory running OS X Lion.


Your system is heavily damaged.

I suggest a visit to the nearest Genius Bar or a complete disk drive wipe/reinstall.

Good luck.

Good for you. I have an old Powerbook with 1.5GB and it's eating up all the RAM, as expected, especially when you RUN 3rd Party APPS.

You don't grasp Memory Management and Shared Pooled Memory.

Even if I had a Mac Pro with 64GB I can assure you I will use every last spare GB.
post #27 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post
 

Apple continues to sell 4GB Macs. There's really no explanation why your system is chewing up 3-4GB of memory. Hell, I have a 2006 vintage MacBook that uses less than a gigabyte of main memory running OS X Lion.

 

 

Yeah... Lion is NOT Mavericks... and certainly not Yosemite... There's a reason your machine can't run the latest OS's.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #28 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post

This is a good change. Hopefully they will bump the baseline on the lower-end models to 8 GB as well. 4 GB is not a usable amount of RAM on modern OS X versions, and since it's non-upgradable, 8 GB really needs to be the minimum.

Total bollox geek-speak! I've never found a problem with 4 GB. The MBA runs like a beach-ball-free dream on Mavericks and that includes having Chem Office and MS Office open on Win 7 in a virtual machine, while several applications are open in MacOS. 

post #29 of 60

A little off topic, but since we're talking about memory usage, how do those of you running Yosemite find it compares? Does it seem faster than Mavericks? I have a 2009 13" MacBook Pro running Mavericks and it seriously lags on certain tasks (I still only have the standard 2GB RAM) and would love to be able to update without having to worry about crippling my system... although I might just finally upgrade since it's been 5 years.

post #30 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzos View Post

Total bollox geek-speak! I've never found a problem with 4 GB. The MBA runs like a beach-ball-free dream on Mavericks and that includes having Chem Office and MS Office open on Win 7 in a virtual machine, while several applications are open in MacOS. 
That's just because the SSD in the MBA is fast enough that you're not noticing the paging as badly. My SO had a MBP with 4 GB and a hard drive, and all she had open was Word, Chrome, Preview, and Mail, and it would page so badly that it would take approximately a minute each time she switched apps. Opening new applications was a nightmare, even if it was something small like System Preferences. Upgrading to 8 GB, of course, fixed it.

Technology marches on, and by now it's marched past 4 GB. Mavericks helps, but really you ought to have more RAM than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post

A little off topic, but since we're talking about memory usage, how do those of you running Yosemite find it compares? Does it seem faster than Mavericks? I have a 2009 13" MacBook Pro running Mavericks and it seriously lags on certain tasks (I still only have the standard 2GB RAM) and would love to be able to update without having to worry about crippling my system... although I might just finally upgrade since it's been 5 years.
Why don't you just upgrade it? You can bring your MBP up to 8 GB, and Yosemite should run fine on that.

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compatible-memory-for/Apple/macbook-pro-%2813-inch%2C-mid-2009%29
post #31 of 60
Crap. I ordered a 2.6 MBP yesterday from Adorama!
post #32 of 60
A 200 MHZ upgrade at 2.8 GHZ is about 7%. What would the reaction be if the iPhone 6 is only 7% faster than the iPhone 5s?
post #33 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I love to see Touch ID or some BT-based proximity sensor that can un/lock my Macs based on some wearable on my person.

Even if you simply drive by your house? I mean, personality goes a long way¡

Seriously, I hear ya. I also think they should have iOS devices auto-config the Notifications on the fly: when I'm behind my Mac I don't need to have all these Push Notifications on my iPad or iPhone, telling me there's new mail when I'm already reading it. Also, next to Push Notifications, they need to implement Pull Notifications; unread email counter (on icon) should update on all devices.
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #34 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

And apparently 2 gigs of vRAM on the ones with dedicated chips.

 

Existing model has exactly the same video card with 2 Gb VRAM.

 

All in all a pretty snore-worthy update.  Not that it isn't a great laptop already.  32 Gb BTO RAM option would be welcome.

 

Just what is it with Apple lately?  I mean where the hell is the new Mac Mini?

post #35 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrangerFX View Post

A 200 MHZ upgrade at 2.8 GHZ is about 7%. What would the reaction be if the iPhone 6 is only 7% faster than the iPhone 5s?

 

Your expectations of intel chips increasing in power at the same rate as ARM chips is utterly absurd. The curves are completely different. 7% is a reasonable increase when it comes to desktops, especially considering these wont even be broadwell yet which is the next big jump. 

post #36 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achillies7 View Post

If they did this I would buy a MacBook Pro right away, mine is beginning to get outdated and could use 16g's instead of 4.

The Install In Progress icon also could use an update; Yosemite is still showing a HDD with a paltry 2GB

Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #37 of 60
2 GB on first 11.6 MBA (late 2010) still working smoothly for me, although an app like Aperture is heavy and slow.
post #38 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I love to see Touch ID or some BT-based proximity sensor that can un/lock my Macs based on some wearable on my person.

 

There's already third-party apps that will do it.

post #39 of 60
That's just because the SSD in the MBA is fast enough that you're not noticing the paging as badly. My SO had a MBP with 4 GB and a hard drive, and all she had open was Word, Chrome, Preview, and Mail, and it would page so badly that it would take approximately a minute each time she switched apps. Opening new applications was a nightmare, even if it was something small like System Preferences. Upgrading to 8 GB, of course, fixed it. <
 
Totally disagree wrt the MBA: I currently have (as typical) 11 MacOS apps open (inc. Pixelmator, Aperture, Word, Excel, Safari, Preview, Mail, iTunes, and VMware (Win 7, online updating as per usual!)), the fan's not running, and Activity Monitor says I still have low 'memory pressure'. Brilliant! 
 
And as to the MBP: I used a 2012 MBP (the last one with a CD slot) a few days ago on Mavs that seemed plenty snappy enough for a non-SD drive on 4 GB RAM. There must be something amiss with the SO's MBP or some software on it (Chrome! ;)  
post #40 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think that's a great move to have them all at 16GB given that it's soldered. These are productive laptops so that amount is ideal. The only thing that seems odd is why they'd stick with the 750M when the 850M is available. It may not be all that odd if they are planning to phase out dedicated GPUs though. With 16GB of RAM, they can boost the IGP to have 2GB of VRAM like the dedicated model. Sticking with the 750M means that Iris Pro still looks strong next to it. Then when Broadwell hits, the performance boost to Iris Pro makes dGPUs irrelevant.

Hopefully the 850M will be available as BTO. It's only 3% slower than two 750Ms in SLI, a major upgrade. 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-850M.107795.0.html

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: In-store signage outs speed-bumped MacBook Pros, 16GB of RAM to come standard