Apple refreshes MacBook Pro with six-core processors, 32GB of RAM

1356712

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 236
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,683member
    Their Tech Specs list for the 13" MBP:
    8GB of 2133MHz LPDDR3 onboard memory
    Configurable to 16GB of memory

    Their Tech Specs list for the 15" MBP:
    16GB of 2400MHz DDR4 onboard memory
    Configurable to 32GB of memory

    Unless it's a typo, it sounds like no 15" MBP will be getting LPDDR4 RAM because they are using a single, re-engineered board until Intel has the proper mobile chips available. I guess that's good for me because it means I can hold off buying a new MBP which hopefully has Face ID by then, too.
    edited July 12 watto_cobraAlex1Nrepressthis
  • Reply 42 of 236
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 
    Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year.  DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.

    Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? 
    Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. 
    Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out. 



    You're right - engineering is always a compromise.

    Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
    netmagewilliamlondonStrangeDaysstompywatto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 43 of 236
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,525member
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 

    Edit:  
    Nevermind, they are already downplaying the fact they were wrong. 
    Its not that. Maybe 5% of people “need” 32GB RAM. Another 15%, or so “think” they need it, and the rest don’t.

    we all (should) know that Apple was waiting for the delayed 8th gen chips for 32GB support. I don’t agree with Apple on one thing. That’s that all of their laptops have to be notebooks. They could have one top tier machine that’s thicker, and heavier, but doesn’t rely on Intel getting out a chip that allows these extras in a lightweight machine. There is a market for such machines, because we see plenty of them sold in the Windows world.

    but Apple has gone more and more towards the middle. These extreme machines don’t sell in enough numbers for Apple to do what windows OEMs do, which is to sell machines that, while they have good numbers, are in the single, or at the most, low double digits when compared to the rest of the line. We see how they removed the SD slot, even though 20% of users used them. 20% is a lot, not a little. The slot takes up little room, and can’t have cost Apple more than about $5. But they took it out anyway. It’s because pro photographers, who are the users of those slots, have moved to newer SD cards, which the older slots in the Macbook Pro didn’t support. Of course usage went down!
    SolinetmageradarthekataylkpatchythepiratemacplusplusAlex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 44 of 236
    Awesome. Truly pro. As an early adopter of the new generation (late 2016 mid pack), I’ve been very happy with touchbar, keyboard (hasn’t been abused yet), retina screen, and it has felt decently snappy for on location video editing of red carpet & non streamed live switched footage for news feeds at events.  It’s the h264 compression bottleneck that can leave us impatient sometimes.
    6 cores, 32gb, and a refresh of graphics are doubtless a kick in the rear. 
    $6700 though...  
    that 4tb ssd has got to be a big chunk of that.
    then apple’s ram prices are of course inflated.
    here’s my question (I’ll check these upgrade prices myself)...
    will drive & ram be user upgradable?
    OWC has been a reliable $ saver for me for well over  decade of macs, hope that’s an option.
    patchythepirateAlex1N
  • Reply 45 of 236
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 2,889member
    This is what I’m seeing on Twitter:

    John Voorhees (@johnvoorhees)
    The MBP updates look very solid – I’d love the new 13-inch model myself – but the idea that the keyboard has been tweaked to be quieter and not more reliable is troubling. 

    OK Apple is never going to say that because it would be admitting the previous generation wasn’t reliable. According to Apple the number of customers with keyboard issues was/is very small. And if the issue was with a specific part (not the design itself) and has since been fixed then there is nothing to mention in a press release or on their website. It blows my mind people actually believe Apple would release new Macs with a keyboard they know is faulty. They’re the ones who will end up paying for repairs, not to mention taking a hit to customer satisfaction. It makes zero sense.
    DAalsethbackstabpatchythepiratesennenAlex1N
  • Reply 46 of 236
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,683member
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 

    Edit:  
    Nevermind, they are already downplaying the fact they were wrong. 
    1) Hardly any people need 32 GiB in a laptop now equates to no one needed it?

    2) So you've already ordered one I take it?
    lamboaudi4StrangeDaysAlex1N
  • Reply 47 of 236
    jimh2 said:
    Damn you Apple. Why did you put in 32GB? What will all the pretend haters who claim they run multiple VMs whine about now?
    I do run multiple VM's and am not a hater. I have had pent up demand for 32GB for the last two years. I'd like to have seen some ports returned, but that is not that big a deal.

    Of course there are people who do this. My point is directed at the haters who pick up on all sorts of limited use cases just so they can find something to complain about. They hear some developer saying they run multiple VMs and suddenly that's their new talking point, even though they never wrote a line of code in their life.

    Whenever an Apple product comes out the haters are suddenly developers, engineers, professional video editors, graphical designers or photographers and their "professional" opinion on why said Apple devices sucks is supposed to carry more weight because of their supposed background.
    lamboaudi4netmagebackstabAlex1Nwatto_cobrabrucemc
  • Reply 48 of 236
    seankillseankill Posts: 369member
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 
    Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year.  DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.

    Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? 
    Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. 
    Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out. 


    Designing that chip will be much difficult than what keyboard commando suggests.
    Because Apple never designs custom chips.... They are more than capable. Regardless, clearly Apple felt it was needed (would they have done it without the critical crowd? Who knows), just take the loss and move on. It’s called progress! 

    The argument of “no one needs 32GB” is null anyway. I got my MacBook in 2012, I only needed 8GB (or so I thought, running simulations for classes easily took advantage of the 16GB) but I knew the RAM was soldered so I got 16GB. It’s called future proofing. I now use 16GB on a regular basis just doing general tasks, not “Pro” grade work. I have a desktop for that now. 
    They’re more than capable if they build their own processors.  You simply can’t bypass Intel’s design (if possible), otherwise that will be reverse engineering and lawsuits up your butt.

    I’m not saying 16GiB is better than 32GiB, but if you can’t then you just can’t.  You could say they start to build a 32GiB machine in the first place, but no one knows for sure how tech will go wo years after.
    Even so. 
    According to the website, the new one has a 83 watt hour battery in it. If I am not mistaking the older models had 76 whr batteries. Could they just have made it a tiny bit thicker with the 83 whr battery to begin with? You bet. 
    avon b7muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 49 of 236
    They did not update the non-touch bar 13 models... Kind of ridiculous to keep selling intel 7th gen and 8th gen models side-by-side. Well at least its saving me the urge to spend $1300. Better luck next year.
    I think Touch ID (T-1 chip) is essential with so many cameras everywhere to capture you typing in your password, plus the T-2 chip which takes security to a whole new level.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 236
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 275member
    melgross said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 

    Edit:  
    Nevermind, they are already downplaying the fact they were wrong. 
    Its not that. Maybe 5% of people “need” 32GB RAM. Another 15%, or so “think” they need it, and the rest don’t.

    we all (should) know that Apple was waiting for the delayed 8th gen chips for 32GB support. I don’t agree with Apple on one thing. That’s that all of their laptops have to be notebooks. They could have one top tier machine that’s thicker, and heavier, but doesn’t rely on Intel getting out a chip that allows these extras in a lightweight machine. There is a market for such machines, because we see plenty of them sold in the Windows world.

    but Apple has gone more and more towards the middle. These extreme machines don’t sell in enough numbers for Apple to do what windows OEMs do, which is to sell machines that, while they have good numbers, are in the single, or at the most, low double digits when compared to the rest of the line. We see how they removed the SD slot, even though 20% of users used them. 20% is a lot, not a little. The slot takes up little room, and can’t have cost Apple more than about $5. But they took it out anyway. It’s because pro photographers, who are the users of those slots, have moved to newer SD cards, which the older slots in the Macbook Pro didn’t support. Of course usage went down!
    It always was.  There are those mobile workstation and gaming laptops even back when Jobs is alive, which often results twice or three times thicker.  Putting a DDR4 inside something under 16mm isn’t a challenge, nor having more than 70Wh of battery (they did not fulfill the batteries anyway), blaming just the thickness is missing the purpose.
    aylk
  • Reply 51 of 236
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 275member
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 
    Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year.  DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.

    Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? 
    Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. 
    Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out. 


    Designing that chip will be much difficult than what keyboard commando suggests.
    Because Apple never designs custom chips.... They are more than capable. Regardless, clearly Apple felt it was needed (would they have done it without the critical crowd? Who knows), just take the loss and move on. It’s called progress! 

    The argument of “no one needs 32GB” is null anyway. I got my MacBook in 2012, I only needed 8GB (or so I thought, running simulations for classes easily took advantage of the 16GB) but I knew the RAM was soldered so I got 16GB. It’s called future proofing. I now use 16GB on a regular basis just doing general tasks, not “Pro” grade work. I have a desktop for that now. 
    They’re more than capable if they build their own processors.  You simply can’t bypass Intel’s design (if possible), otherwise that will be reverse engineering and lawsuits up your butt.

    I’m not saying 16GiB is better than 32GiB, but if you can’t then you just can’t.  You could say they start to build a 32GiB machine in the first place, but no one knows for sure how tech will go wo years after.
    Even so. 
    According to the website, the new one has a 83 watt hour battery in it. If I am not mistaking the older models had 76 whr batteries. Could they just have made it a tiny bit thicker with the 83 whr battery to begin with? You bet. 
    Of course, blaming on them on why they didn’t start this the first place.  But then let’s move on.

    The thickness haven’t change by the way.
    edited July 12 netmage
  • Reply 52 of 236

    chabig said:
    Damn you Apple. Why did you put in 32GB? What will all the pretend haters who claim they run multiple VMs whine about now?
    It’s 2018 now. Everyone knows a machine can’t be “Pro” unless it ships with 64GB.
    What fools you all are. 128GB is the new PRO standard. Don't mind the 2 hours of battery life!
    edited July 12 netmagebackstabmacpluspluswatto_cobramuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 53 of 236
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,525member
    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 
    Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year.  DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.

    Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? 
    Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. 
    Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out. 



    You're right - engineering is always a compromise.

    Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
    Whose to say? But remember that there are Windows laptops out with 32GB RAM, and have been for a while. If they could do it, Apple could have done it. They just decided that they didn’t want in on that market, and, unlike Windows OEMs, every device Apple comes out with must be iconic. So to Apple, that machine would have been a “big deal”, rather than just another model in the line, as with everyone else, other than the efforts Microsoft has been making in hardware, where they’re duplicating Apple’s model of a small line with few, well defined machines.
    aylkAlex1Nwatto_cobramuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 54 of 236
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,683member
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 

    Edit:  
    Nevermind, they are already downplaying the fact they were wrong. 
    Its not that. Maybe 5% of people “need” 32GB RAM. Another 15%, or so “think” they need it, and the rest don’t.

    we all (should) know that Apple was waiting for the delayed 8th gen chips for 32GB support. I don’t agree with Apple on one thing. That’s that all of their laptops have to be notebooks. They could have one top tier machine that’s thicker, and heavier, but doesn’t rely on Intel getting out a chip that allows these extras in a lightweight machine. There is a market for such machines, because we see plenty of them sold in the Windows world.

    but Apple has gone more and more towards the middle. These extreme machines don’t sell in enough numbers for Apple to do what windows OEMs do, which is to sell machines that, while they have good numbers, are in the single, or at the most, low double digits when compared to the rest of the line. We see how they removed the SD slot, even though 20% of users used them. 20% is a lot, not a little. The slot takes up little room, and can’t have cost Apple more than about $5. But they took it out anyway. It’s because pro photographers, who are the users of those slots, have moved to newer SD cards, which the older slots in the Macbook Pro didn’t support. Of course usage went down!
    It always was.  There are those mobile workstation and gaming laptops even back when Jobs is alive, which often results twice or three times thicker.  Putting a DDR4 inside something under 16mm isn’t a challenge, nor having more than 70Wh of battery (they did not fulfill the batteries anyway), blaming just the thickness is missing the purpose.
    Now no one gets LPDDR4. Maybe they were able to improve battery density or make changes to to the logic board that will allow for high energy draw and heat dissipation without incurring too much extra drain, but for most buyers not having an LPDDR4 RAM option is a downgrade in utility.
    edited July 12 netmageAlex1Nrepressthis
  • Reply 55 of 236
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,430member
    backstab said:
    Continuation of whining and bitching in ...3 ...2 ...1
    From the people who said Apple using DDR4 RAM in an MBP was unrealistic and was never going to happen?

    williamlondonavon b7singularityAlex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 56 of 236
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 275member
    Soli said:
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 

    Edit:  
    Nevermind, they are already downplaying the fact they were wrong. 
    Its not that. Maybe 5% of people “need” 32GB RAM. Another 15%, or so “think” they need it, and the rest don’t.

    we all (should) know that Apple was waiting for the delayed 8th gen chips for 32GB support. I don’t agree with Apple on one thing. That’s that all of their laptops have to be notebooks. They could have one top tier machine that’s thicker, and heavier, but doesn’t rely on Intel getting out a chip that allows these extras in a lightweight machine. There is a market for such machines, because we see plenty of them sold in the Windows world.

    but Apple has gone more and more towards the middle. These extreme machines don’t sell in enough numbers for Apple to do what windows OEMs do, which is to sell machines that, while they have good numbers, are in the single, or at the most, low double digits when compared to the rest of the line. We see how they removed the SD slot, even though 20% of users used them. 20% is a lot, not a little. The slot takes up little room, and can’t have cost Apple more than about $5. But they took it out anyway. It’s because pro photographers, who are the users of those slots, have moved to newer SD cards, which the older slots in the Macbook Pro didn’t support. Of course usage went down!
    It always was.  There are those mobile workstation and gaming laptops even back when Jobs is alive, which often results twice or three times thicker.  Putting a DDR4 inside something under 16mm isn’t a challenge, nor having more than 70Wh of battery (they did not fulfill the batteries anyway), blaming just the thickness is missing the purpose.
    Now no one gets DDR4. Maybe they were able to improve battery density or make changes to to the logic board that will allow for high energy draw and heat dissipation without incurring too much extra drain, but for most buyers not having an LPDDR4 RAM option is a downgrade in utility.
    Of course, I agree with you there.  That’s just because Apple have no choice, and three years with 16GiB will be a huge embarrassment.

    Also, for some reason, the batteries aren’t fulfilled with the case in the first two models, so it’s no wonder they can keep improving the battery capacity.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 236

    jimh2 said
     I'd like to have seen some ports returned, but that is not that big a deal.
    Truly not a big deal. I have some very compact and remarkably cheap (~$20) usb-c multifunction port adapters that work better for accessories than direct connect.  Dock multiple connections with one plug, easier visual and physical  access for sd cards, usb etc. 
    with 2 of these, I have 4x usb3, Ethernet, 4K hdmi, sd card, along with charging input looped.  They are on a short cable making connections easy (lift, look, rotate).  2 ports left for dedicated thunderbolt 3 or usb-c devices. 
    Its a feature!
    backstabsennenAlex1Nwatto_cobrabrucemc
  • Reply 58 of 236
    seankillseankill Posts: 369member

    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 
    Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year.  DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.

    Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? 
    Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. 
    Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out. 



    You're right - engineering is always a compromise.

    Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
    The only reason it was a comprise was due to the fact Apple lowered the battery over 20% in the pursuit of thinness. How about go slightly thicker and not comprise on a working machine?


    williamlondonsingularityAlex1N
  • Reply 59 of 236
    BOOM and out of nowhere

    And where are the trolls who have been constantly whining about how Apple 'doesn't care about Macs'? *Crickets
    SoliAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 236
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 275member
    seankill said:

    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 
    Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year.  DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.

    Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? 
    Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. 
    Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out. 



    You're right - engineering is always a compromise.

    Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
    The only reason it was a comprise was due to the fact Apple lowered the battery over 20% in the pursuit of thinness. How about go slightly thicker and not comprise on a working machine?


    Sigh.

    have you listen everything that I said?

    But then, if you just wanna blaming on thiness for blaming on thiness, go ahead.
    JWSC
Sign In or Register to comment.