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

1235712

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 231
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,304member
    gatorguy 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?
    The price? 

    They'll find something....
    Wait for it. 
    Well, I don't need 32GB, but as of today, the cheapest 15" MBP I can buy is 2,799€. And that will only get me 256GB of SSD.



  • Reply 82 of 231
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,829administrator
    The most advance notebook memory is LPDDR6 that just got release in April 2018!  It around 12X faster then LPDDR5!
    And yet, Intel processors don't even support LPDDR4.
    andrewj5790williamlondonAlex1Nwatto_cobrarepressthis
  • Reply 83 of 231
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,289member
    It's been this way for a while, but I think Apple has lost its mind in regard to pricing.   I think the fact that their executives and managers make so much money (even if offset by absurd housing costs) has distorted their perception of what the masses, even the higher-end of those masses, can afford to buy.

    One can buy an internal Samsung 4TB SSD drive for $1051 and a 2TB for $500.    Of course you can't use that in a MBP because Apple hardwired the storage and made it almost impossible to replace/upgrade.   Apple wants $1200 to go from 512K to 1TB and $3200 to get to 4TB of storage.    Ridiculous.  Apple charges $400 to get from 16GB to 32GB of memory and a 32GB DDR4 kit from a company like Crucial is as little as $350.   And those are (obviously) in quantity one. 

    2.6G / 16GB / 2TB is $4000.    2.9G/ 32GB / 4TB is $6699.   Personally, I think that's absurd.   The only saving grace is that on models released in the last few years, prices came down pretty quickly and there were and continues to be lots of sales.
    aylkwilliamlondon
  • Reply 84 of 231
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,630member
    zoetmb said:
    It's been this way for a while, but I think Apple has lost its mind in regard to pricing.   I think the fact that their executives and managers make so much money (even if offset by absurd housing costs) has distorted their perception of what the masses, even the higher-end of those masses, can afford to buy.

    One can buy an internal Samsung 4TB SSD drive for $1051 and a 2TB for $500.    Of course you can't use that in a MBP because Apple hardwired the storage and made it almost impossible to replace/upgrade.   Apple wants $1200 to go from 512K to 1TB and $3200 to get to 4TB of storage.    Ridiculous.  Apple charges $400 to get from 16GB to 32GB of memory and a 32GB DDR4 kit from a company like Crucial is as little as $350.   And those are (obviously) in quantity one. 

    2.6G / 16GB / 2TB is $4000.    2.9G/ 32GB / 4TB is $6699.   Personally, I think that's absurd.   The only saving grace is that on models released in the last few years, prices came down pretty quickly and there were and continues to be lots of sales.
    Link?
  • Reply 85 of 231
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,829administrator
    zoetmb said:
    It's been this way for a while, but I think Apple has lost its mind in regard to pricing.   I think the fact that their executives and managers make so much money (even if offset by absurd housing costs) has distorted their perception of what the masses, even the higher-end of those masses, can afford to buy.

    One can buy an internal Samsung 4TB SSD drive for $1051 and a 2TB for $500.    Of course you can't use that in a MBP because Apple hardwired the storage and made it almost impossible to replace/upgrade.   Apple wants $1200 to go from 512K to 1TB and $3200 to get to 4TB of storage.    Ridiculous.  Apple charges $400 to get from 16GB to 32GB of memory and a 32GB DDR4 kit from a company like Crucial is as little as $350.   And those are (obviously) in quantity one. 

    2.6G / 16GB / 2TB is $4000.    2.9G/ 32GB / 4TB is $6699.   Personally, I think that's absurd.   The only saving grace is that on models released in the last few years, prices came down pretty quickly and there were and continues to be lots of sales.
    The 4TB SSD you're referring to is 1/3 the speed of the storage in the MBP. The RAM is a bit overpriced, but not as much as it's been.

    On the other hand, going from four-core to six-core on the 15-inch is $300 more. That's a hell of a deal.
    StrangeDaysJWSCchiabackstabstompyroundaboutnowwilliamlondonsennenAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 86 of 231
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,289member

    DuhSesame said:
    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.
    IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues.  If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had.   I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life.   My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially.   Before that, I never got more than four hours. 

    But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years.   Apple was supposed to be better than this.
    aylkwilliamlondon
  • Reply 87 of 231
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,911member
    crowley said:
    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?
    I don't recall anyone saying that -- but I do recall people explaining why the 16GB limit was there, and it was due to the low-power RAM being selected. Now they're selecting non-LP... What the reasoning is, I don't know -- maybe they improved power efficiency elsewhere to recoup the battery affects, or maybe they just tossed their hands in the air.
    edited July 12 macplusplusAlex1Nwatto_cobrarepressthis
  • Reply 88 of 231
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,911member
    zoetmb said:

    DuhSesame said:
    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.
    IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues.  If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had.   I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life.   My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially.   Before that, I never got more than four hours. 

    But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years.   Apple was supposed to be better than this.
    You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?
    edited July 12 JWSCmike1macplusplusroundaboutnowwilliamlondonsennenAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 89 of 231
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,630member
    zoetmb said:
    It's been this way for a while, but I think Apple has lost its mind in regard to pricing.   I think the fact that their executives and managers make so much money (even if offset by absurd housing costs) has distorted their perception of what the masses, even the higher-end of those masses, can afford to buy.

    One can buy an internal Samsung 4TB SSD drive for $1051 and a 2TB for $500.    Of course you can't use that in a MBP because Apple hardwired the storage and made it almost impossible to replace/upgrade.   Apple wants $1200 to go from 512K to 1TB and $3200 to get to 4TB of storage.    Ridiculous.  Apple charges $400 to get from 16GB to 32GB of memory and a 32GB DDR4 kit from a company like Crucial is as little as $350.   And those are (obviously) in quantity one. 

    2.6G / 16GB / 2TB is $4000.    2.9G/ 32GB / 4TB is $6699.   Personally, I think that's absurd.   The only saving grace is that on models released in the last few years, prices came down pretty quickly and there were and continues to be lots of sales.
    The 4TB SSD you're referring to is 1/3 the speed of the storage in the MBP. The RAM is a bit overpriced, but not as much as it's been.

    On the other hand, going from four-core to six-core on the 15-inch is $300 more. That's a hell of a deal.
    It's also a 2.5" drive.

    I would've at least thought he'd be using some level of performance and size parity when making a comparison to show that Apple's SSD is too costly, not choosing the largest and slowest possible drive for the cheapest price point.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 90 of 231
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,829administrator
    zoetmb said:

    DuhSesame said:
    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.
    IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues.  If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had.   I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life.   My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially.   Before that, I never got more than four hours. 

    But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years.   Apple was supposed to be better than this.
    You would. Most of the AI readership would.

    Apple's larger customer base, meaning 99 percent of them conservatively, doesn't care one whit.
    StrangeDaysAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 91 of 231
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,691member
    zoetmb said:

    DuhSesame said:
    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.
    IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues.  If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had.   I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life.   My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially.   Before that, I never got more than four hours. 

    But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years.   Apple was supposed to be better than this.
    You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?
    Probably MacOS. Windows 10 may be an improvement over its predecessors but I rarely run into business users who once committed to Mac have reversed course and decided to go back to Windows. Mac users are a committed bunch. 
    edited July 12 aylkAlex1N
  • Reply 92 of 231
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,630member
    The most advance notebook memory is LPDDR6 that just got release in April 2018!  It around 12X faster then LPDDR5!
    And yet, Intel processors don't even support LPDDR4.
    PC makers gave Intel an inch, Intel took a foot, and now Apple barely has a leg to stand on, which is why I can't wait for Apple to move to ARM.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobrarepressthis
  • Reply 93 of 231
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,630member
    gatorguy said:
    zoetmb said:

    DuhSesame said:
    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.
    IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues.  If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had.   I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life.   My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially.   Before that, I never got more than four hours. 

    But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years.   Apple was supposed to be better than this.
    You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?
    Probably MacOS. Windows 10 may be an improvement over its predecessors but I rarely run into business users who once committed to Mac have reversed course and decided to go back to Windows. Mac users are a committed bunch. 
    1) I bet there are a lot more people committed to Windows than all Mac users committed to Windows. PC gamers alone probably outnumber all Mac users. 

    2) It says something about the product that you see move to macOS and stay but see people move from Windows.
    mike1watto_cobra
  • Reply 94 of 231
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,429member
    rhinotuff said:
    Awesome!  Now bring on the Mac Mini refresh!
    Appreciate what Apple have done and stop what not.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 95 of 231
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,429member
    Thank you. Thank you, Thank you. you damn Apple. You pleasantly urprise us all the time. Yo, apple Unpredictable, More power to you, Should have waited for September. and have big bang announcement on all products.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 96 of 231
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,304member
    zoetmb said:

    DuhSesame said:
    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.
    IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues.  If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had.   I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life.   My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially.   Before that, I never got more than four hours. 

    But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years.   Apple was supposed to be better than this.
    You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?
    Congratulations on it being perfect for you but that doesn't mean it's perfect for everyone and Apple could just as easily stop prioritizing those aspects in favour of others or offer a solution to both groups.

    Whatever they do, your conclusion is condescending. Speed and performance are entirely relative. Yesterday, Apple's fastest laptop option was 'X'. Today it is 'Y' and up to 70% faster. Yesterday they were were selling three year old hardware that didn't have the fastest performance. Clearly there is a proportion of Apple users who are willing to sacrifice speed and performance.
    aylk
  • Reply 97 of 231
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,429member
    crowley said:
    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?
    I don't recall anyone saying that -- but I do recall people explaining why the 16GB limit was there, and it was due to the low-power RAM being selected. Now they're selecting non-LP... What the reasoning is, I don't know -- maybe they improved power efficiency elsewhere to recoup the battery affects, or maybe they just tossed their hands in the air.
    Which is exactly what the "whiners" were asking for, so not unrealistic at all, and it very much has happened.  Certain parts of the "defend Apple at all costs" crowd aren't saying much about their previous insistence that "whiners" didn't know what they were talking about.

    Yes, some people did say that.


    edited July 12 singularityAlex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 98 of 231
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,330member
    They are neat little machines. Priorities! There’s just no way I can personally justify spending $5K on a tricked out laptop. That’s more than a down payment on a new car... to each their own!  ;)  I’m just glad there remains a large portion of the population which remains insensitive to price no matter if times are good or bad.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 99 of 231
    pkisselpkissel Posts: 21member
    revenant said:
    nice update, i just wish we saw face id come in it. dada needs a new computer.
    Just buy an Apple Watch.  Effortless auto sign-in.
    right_said_fredstompyuktechiewatto_cobrabrucemc
  • Reply 100 of 231
    rhinotuff said:
    Awesome!  Now bring on the Mac Mini refresh!
    But will we like the Mac Mini even if it is refreshed? If it's not user upgradeable, I wouldn't be jumping for joy. I still might buy it if the specs are good. Each new product cycle, Apple is letting fewer users perform simple component upgrades on their own machines. It's not a matter of hating Apple because that's how they do business. I just don't understand why Apple is so different from other computer manufacturers.
    aylk
Sign In or Register to comment.