I am sure a subset of the pro users genuinely require more than 16 GB RAM on their Macbook Pros, but John Gruber called attention to this post by Jonathan Zdziarski where he ran seriously heavy, concurrent workloads and was still left a bit of free RAM on his 16 GB machine:
https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355
1. As of today, one year from Optane announcement, NO ONE has actually recieved any hardware Optane Samples. Even those who said have been working with Intel, Oracle and Facebook, are using Server with Optane remotely. I.e The Server sit inside Intel DC and only provide them remote access.
So basically it is not even ANYWHERE close to shipping.
2. Optane is expected to be 10x cheaper then price of RAM per GB. Actually that is more like the projected cost some years after it ship. Which means you are VERY unlikely to get this price in the first 3 - 4 years of its shipment, oh back to the first point, that is when it actually ship first.
3. Number provided by Intel at the first IDF were all theoretical numbers. Testing so far from Facebook and Oracle shows it is NO WHERE near that fantasy speed. It is still very fast, latency is still 10x faster then the best in SSD. ( Intel keeps revising their number downwards ).
4. We have LPDDR4 and Wide I/O 2 sitting in the next 5 years time frame. Both will provide battery, capacity and speed improvement.
5. SSD aren't sitting still either, although we may likely not see substantial improvement until PCI-E 4.0 arrives. Since we are bottlenecked by 4x PCI-E 3.0 and we dont have any more additional lanes for SSD. And it is getting cheaper as we speak.
Well, reading this is very nice, but X-Point drives are expected to be much more expensive than even the fastest SSds for years. It isn't expected that they will be used in consumer products for years. Pro equipment is classified as consumer in this regard. These drives will be for large installations where the cost is less of an issue, and will be less because of the large purchasing those companies do.
it would be interesting to see Apple go this way, but as an option, if they feel they can sell them. But I'm seeing expected pricing of $2,000, or more, for a 1TB drive next year. I don't see how Apple can do that. They would need to charge even more.
Apple has never backed off from offering high performance, high price tech solutions. Maybe Apple isn't pushing existing tech (RAM) further because it is planning to offer a revolutionary new solution.
2. Optane is expected to be 10x the price of RAM per GB. Actually that is more like the projected cost some years after it ship. Which means you are VERY unlikely to get this price in the first 3 - 4 years of its shipment, oh back to the first point, that is when it actually ship first.
I call bs on this one.... I don't dispute much of what you said, but it is not going to be 10x the price of RAM (for either version - the DDR one or the ). You are basically saying that Optane 128GB SSD is going to sell for $8000.
2. Optane is expected to be 10x the price of RAM per GB. Actually that is more like the projected cost some years after it ship. Which means you are VERY unlikely to get this price in the first 3 - 4 years of its shipment, oh back to the first point, that is when it actually ship first.
I call bs on this one.... I don't dispute much of what you said, but it is not going to be 10x the price of RAM (for either version - the DDR one or the ). You are basically saying that Optane 128GB SSD is going to sell for $8000.
Sorry i missed the word "cheaper". Edited now. It was initially 10x cheaper, then they revised to the recent 4x cheaper.
Some would argue you could have Optane as cache. Like 16GB RAM + 16GB Optane. I still dont see the benefits of that compared to going direct 32GB RAM with LPDDR4.
On a serious note, so when this mansion beach controller turns up on Intel motherboards, will Apple swap to it, or will we have Apple competing with Intel and other laptop designers on SSD read write speed with its own controller?
Intel needs more pci-e lanes and no 20+ stacked off of the 4X dmi bus it not going to get you 20+ lanes of usage.
That is one technology I am very exited about. Also I am not buying 2016 MacBookpPro in hopes that Optane SSD drives will in fact make it in to a new Mac products!
Well, reading this is very nice, but X-Point drives are expected to be much more expensive than even the fastest SSds for years. It isn't expected that they will be used in consumer products for years. Pro equipment is classified as consumer in this regard. These drives will be for large installations where the cost is less of an issue, and will be less because of the large purchasing those companies do.
it would be interesting to see Apple go this way, but as an option, if they feel they can sell them. But I'm seeing expected pricing of $2,000, or more, for a 1TB drive next year. I don't see how Apple can do that. They would need to charge even more.
Apple may have bumped up the profit margins for the current generation MacBook Pro to smooth out the adoption to more expensive hardware in the next release. People will already be ready for the higher price, and Apple may accept a lower profit margin. Large-scale adoption will bring the prices down for that super-fast tech.
SSD performance is one area where the MacBook Pro is unambiguously very much a Pro computer.
One thing I'm curious about regarding Optane is whether there would be a discernible advantage to using it for virtual memory. That could be a way to make people content with the 16 GB RAM limit.
At the time of Optane there probably will be new Intel chipsets and processors that will be able to handle 32 GB RAM while remain power efficient. And DDR4 will be faster. But having additional 64 GB lightning fast swap will be cool anyway.
Thing is we'll probably get people who if this happens and there is no need for RAM in Macs they will demand MORE RAM in their MacBooks or why isn't there ANY RAM, and they'll want their RAM back! and say "great now they took away our RAM what's next Apple?" geez...
But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
On a $3000 machine that people may hope to keep for 4-5 yrs, it's not very future proof. Especially if you use a virtual machine, like many professionals do, which effectively can cut your available RAM in half.
Maybe you need a more efficient workflow. Running 3-4 computers off of a laptop is a terrible idea and yes, I have done it for years too. (until I'd ditched Windows development) What are you running in VM that really needs 8 GB in development environment? Why wouldn't you run this in the cloud or use containers instead of whole virtualized operating systems? Again, just seems inefficient even if you had a 32GB option.
I was actually wondering the same thing. I am also a developer but in my case the I at most would only maximum need 2 VMs -- which could fit in a 16GB machine (even if tight) -- but I only use 1 at a time (usually Linux with an Oracle Enterprise DBMS).
Some virtual machine software wires the VM's memory on launch (Parallels for example: http://kb.parallels.com/en/122705 ) but others don't. VMWare doesn't use any extra memory until you start running processes in the VM but it allocates the amount of RAM as swap space on the internal drive, which is freed up on closing the VM. You can run a whole bunch of VMs if you don't do much in each one and even if you do, the system's memory compression should compress the background one very quickly.
The thing is people are complaining about they cannot do their work because of it.... but then.... if that is the case the person would NOT be able to use the current generation laptop (that is being replaced).
Other Macs support over 16GB, someone may have an iMac with 32GB+ and would like to switch to a more portable option. Software that deals with video processing has quite heavy RAM requirements. Apple recommends 8GB for Motion and FCPX for 4K. Running 2-3 creative apps that are each using 6-8GB would use up all the available memory. When there are modifications done in creative software, they have to hold this in memory. The faster that storage is getting, software developers are making use of it though. Cached video frames can be easily streamed from storage.
These kind of hardware specs are rarely essentials these days. The hardware doesn't prevent the job being done, it's just a bit faster with the extra specs.
Having the memory soldered in makes it harder to supply 32GB. They can make large batches of the motherboards when they've all got 16GB. Hardly anyone would order 32GB so they'd have to manufacture that in very small numbers or on-demand. I think it would make sense to have the lower MBP remain at 16GB and have 24GB or 32GB in the higher model and there wouldn't be memory options, buyers would pick the base model with the memory they wanted.
Apple have a Mac Pro that almost cost $10000. But it don't even have TB3.
It would have been a neat trick to get TB3 on a machine that was shipped more than two years before TB3 first shipped on any commercial product.
if only if had some pci-e slots
Ya that would help upgrade to TB3..... not. It would require a processor and motherboard swap out anyways.... which if you get that far.... you are basically getting a new computer anyways.
But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
On a $3000 machine that people may hope to keep for 4-5 yrs, it's not very future proof. Especially if you use a virtual machine, like many professionals do, which effectively can cut your available RAM in half.
Maybe you need a more efficient workflow. Running 3-4 computers off of a laptop is a terrible idea and yes, I have done it for years too. (until I'd ditched Windows development) What are you running in VM that really needs 8 GB in development environment? Why wouldn't you run this in the cloud or use containers instead of whole virtualized operating systems? Again, just seems inefficient even if you had a 32GB option.
I was actually wondering the same thing. I am also a developer but in my case the I at most would only maximum need 2 VMs -- which could fit in a 16GB machine (even if tight) -- but I only use 1 at a time (usually Linux with an Oracle Enterprise DBMS).
Some virtual machine software wires the VM's memory on launch (Parallels for example: http://kb.parallels.com/en/122705 ) but others don't. VMWare doesn't use any extra memory until you start running processes in the VM but it allocates the amount of RAM as swap space on the internal drive, which is freed up on closing the VM. You can run a whole bunch of VMs if you don't do much in each one and even if you do, the system's memory compression should compress the background one very quickly.
The thing is people are complaining about they cannot do their work because of it.... but then.... if that is the case the person would NOT be able to use the current generation laptop (that is being replaced).
Other Macs support over 16GB, someone may have an iMac with 32GB+ and would like to switch to a more portable option. Software that deals with video processing has quite heavy RAM requirements. Apple recommends 8GB for Motion and FCPX for 4K. Running 2-3 creative apps that are each using 6-8GB would use up all the available memory. When there are modifications done in creative software, they have to hold this in memory. The faster that storage is getting, software developers are making use of it though. Cached video frames can be easily streamed from storage.
These kind of hardware specs are rarely essentials these days. The hardware doesn't prevent the job being done, it's just a bit faster with the extra specs.
Having the memory soldered in makes it harder to supply 32GB. They can make large batches of the motherboards when they've all got 16GB. Hardly anyone would order 32GB so they'd have to manufacture that in very small numbers or on-demand. I think it would make sense to have the lower MBP remain at 16GB and have 24GB or 32GB in the higher model and there wouldn't be memory options, buyers would pick the base model with the memory they wanted.
OK, now you have professional with on site shooting 4K video and processing raw 4K video.... I have seen where it is stored, it is usually on a rack of storage in a larger vehicle. If you are getting up that high, and you need computing power you might as well outfit a mobile office in an RV or something and use iMacs or Mac Pros.
Comments
1. As of today, one year from Optane announcement, NO ONE has actually recieved any hardware Optane Samples. Even those who said have been working with Intel, Oracle and Facebook, are using Server with Optane remotely. I.e The Server sit inside Intel DC and only provide them remote access.
So basically it is not even ANYWHERE close to shipping.
2. Optane is expected to be 10x cheaper then price of RAM per GB. Actually that is more like the projected cost some years after it ship. Which means you are VERY unlikely to get this price in the first 3 - 4 years of its shipment, oh back to the first point, that is when it actually ship first.
3. Number provided by Intel at the first IDF were all theoretical numbers. Testing so far from Facebook and Oracle shows it is NO WHERE near that fantasy speed. It is still very fast, latency is still 10x faster then the best in SSD. ( Intel keeps revising their number downwards ).
4. We have LPDDR4 and Wide I/O 2 sitting in the next 5 years time frame. Both will provide battery, capacity and speed improvement.
5. SSD aren't sitting still either, although we may likely not see substantial improvement until PCI-E 4.0 arrives. Since we are bottlenecked by 4x PCI-E 3.0 and we dont have any more additional lanes for SSD. And it is getting cheaper as we speak.
Some would argue you could have Optane as cache. Like 16GB RAM + 16GB Optane. I still dont see the benefits of that compared to going direct 32GB RAM with LPDDR4.
Waking from sleep in one second? Already here.
Apple may have bumped up the profit margins for the current generation MacBook Pro to smooth out the adoption to more expensive hardware in the next release. People will already be ready for the higher price, and Apple may accept a lower profit margin. Large-scale adoption will bring the prices down for that super-fast tech.
Other Macs support over 16GB, someone may have an iMac with 32GB+ and would like to switch to a more portable option. Software that deals with video processing has quite heavy RAM requirements. Apple recommends 8GB for Motion and FCPX for 4K. Running 2-3 creative apps that are each using 6-8GB would use up all the available memory. When there are modifications done in creative software, they have to hold this in memory. The faster that storage is getting, software developers are making use of it though. Cached video frames can be easily streamed from storage.
These kind of hardware specs are rarely essentials these days. The hardware doesn't prevent the job being done, it's just a bit faster with the extra specs.
Having the memory soldered in makes it harder to supply 32GB. They can make large batches of the motherboards when they've all got 16GB. Hardly anyone would order 32GB so they'd have to manufacture that in very small numbers or on-demand. I think it would make sense to have the lower MBP remain at 16GB and have 24GB or 32GB in the higher model and there wouldn't be memory options, buyers would pick the base model with the memory they wanted.
OK, now you have professional with on site shooting 4K video and processing raw 4K video.... I have seen where it is stored, it is usually on a rack of storage in a larger vehicle. If you are getting up that high, and you need computing power you might as well outfit a mobile office in an RV or something and use iMacs or Mac Pros.