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

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited July 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,209moderator
    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.
  • Reply 2 of 59
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    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 

  • Reply 3 of 59
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 59
    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.
  • Reply 5 of 59
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,792member

    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. 

  • Reply 6 of 59

    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.

  • Reply 7 of 59
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,752member
    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?
  • Reply 8 of 59
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 336member
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 59
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 336member
    bageljoey wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 10 of 59
    inklinginkling Posts: 731member
    Hopefully this means the next generations of MBAs will have 8 Gig stock.
  • Reply 11 of 59
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,267member
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 59
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 336member
    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.
  • Reply 13 of 59
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 336member
    asdasd wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 59
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,647member
    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.

  • Reply 15 of 59
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    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.

  • Reply 16 of 59
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,359member
    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.

  • Reply 17 of 59
    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.

  • Reply 18 of 59
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 336member
    Since when? It just doesn’t have a door.
    . You're right... My bad... It is slotted... Just have to test it apart.
  • Reply 19 of 59
    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.

  • Reply 20 of 59
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,359member

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.