Kaby Lake suitable for MacBook Pro said to debut at January's Consumer Electronics Show

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 25
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,335member
    Chris J said:
    Since Kaby Lake still wont support LPDDR4 RAM (so still no support for >16GB RAM), (edit) still only quad-core offerings (/edit) and the only real enhancement is a bump in the integrated graphics, this isn't really going to be a significant improvement for the high-end macbook pros (which use discrete graphics chips). It could be that only the U-series will make an appearance in the macbooks with the pros remaining as they are until coffee lake chips are available (2nd half of 2018 perhaps?).


    I thought I'd heard differently and that if Apple does a 2017 MBP refresh it could include LPDDR4 with chips expected to be delivered by Intel to support that at the time.

    Anyone else want to "chip in" on this discussion (the pun was accidental until I saw it, honest)...??  I was going to wait just to get the RAM (and yes my Mac experience tells me I CAN use it) but maybe I'll just give in and get this version of the MBP.....
  • Reply 22 of 25
    Apple should just purchase Intel. 
  • Reply 23 of 25
    bigpics said:
    Chris J said:
    Since Kaby Lake still wont support LPDDR4 RAM (so still no support for >16GB RAM), (edit) still only quad-core offerings (/edit) and the only real enhancement is a bump in the integrated graphics, this isn't really going to be a significant improvement for the high-end macbook pros (which use discrete graphics chips). It could be that only the U-series will make an appearance in the macbooks with the pros remaining as they are until coffee lake chips are available (2nd half of 2018 perhaps?).


    I thought I'd heard differently and that if Apple does a 2017 MBP refresh it could include LPDDR4 with chips expected to be delivered by Intel to support that at the time.

    Anyone else want to "chip in" on this discussion (the pun was accidental until I saw it, honest)...??  I was going to wait just to get the RAM (and yes my Mac experience tells me I CAN use it) but maybe I'll just give in and get this version of the MBP.....
    Yeah - would love AppleInsider to do a more in-depth article on this, because the short little quips just don't add up.

    I found this article helpful:
    http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/10/31/macbook-pros-lack-of-32gb-ram-option-could-also-be-blamed-on-intels-skylake-chips/

    The key part is:
    Kaby Lake is set to include support, but only for the U category of chips. So no LPDDR4 support for mobile until 2018 I think.

    ie: the chip suitable for the MacBook Pro (performance/TD wise) that has support for LPDDR4 is Coffee Lake or maybe Cannon Lake not Kaby Lake.  But people keep predicting that Intel will release a Kaby Lake part with LPDDR4 support for the MacBook Pro late in 2017.   The fact that Kaby Lake U series parts can support LPDDR4 clearly mean it's possible - but whether Intel will or not... 

    To me it shows that Intel are deliberately locking Apple out these days (or only catering to their Macbook/Macbook Air dept.).  By Apple locking into their own A-Series chips on the phone, and Intel chips elsewhere, they don't have any Carrot or Stick to use as leverage to get Intel to do them any favours.  i.e.: they can't threaten to take their Macbook business away, and they can't suggest that there is any room to move their Phone business over.
  • Reply 24 of 25
    nht said:
    rcomeau said:
    qwwera said:
    Apple needs to hurry up and ditch Intel yesterday. I hope arm development is getting close.
    So the company that makes the most powerful processors is not progressing at your desired pace, so Apple should ditch the entire platform (with all the obvious challenges and drawbacks) at the first sign of another chip company maybe catching up? Where is the logic in that?
    There are a lot of folks claiming that Intel is holding Apple back but I think Intel has been catering to Apple's needs with lower power parts.  They went from a 35W Core i5-2435M in the 2011 MBP with 11.5 power / watt to a 28W i5-5257U and a 20.78 performance / watt in 2015 to a 15W i5-6360U in 2016 (the 6267U is 28W).

    The Core M 6Y54 used in the MB is 4.5W and 118.5 p/W and the Core M 6Y75 is 132.95 p/W.

    http://www.comparecpus.com/en/intel-i5-5257u-power-consumption/model-166-10

    https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/221881-apples-a9x-goes-head-to-head-against-intels-core-m-in-arm-x86-grudge-match

    Essentially Intel has matched ARM's power advantage so for a laptop maintaining easy windows capability probably is worth the BOM cost delta given the number of enterprise deployments of the MB/MBP.  I have to be able to run MS Project and it works fine in Parallels or Fusion.  Likewise Visio.  And there are still a few enterprise tools that require me to run them in a windows environment.

    I don't think ARM development is close to what Intel can provide in a Core i7 or Xeon.
    I agree with you 100%. I was arguing that qwwera's comment that Apple should dump Intel just because ARM may be catch up made no sense. Sorry of I was ambiguous.
Sign In or Register to comment.