I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better.
I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness.
Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard.
Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.
The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it.
Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics.
OK, do you want a 9 pound laptop? For what? Why not use a desktop instead? I’ve got to believe the market for those who need desktop or workstation class performance in a portable device is very small. Apple doesn’t cater to extremely niche markets.
I think you need to get beyond the jumping to conclusions and extremes, and actually read my statements. I am noting using a chassis the size of the 2015s; stop using extremes. Everyone on this forum can't get past the 2018 design or 9 pound laptops. Good lord, its not an either/or. The 2015 model was 4.5 pounds and thicker. With the shrinking of the components, there would be plenty of room to improve the thermals rather than make the device thinner to grab headlines. GRANTED, it wouldn't allow the full use of the i9 but it would improve things as the PC would have more room to move a larger volume of air over a larger surface area to transfer the heat. See if you can read this statement without replying: "9 pound laptops."
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think what you miss is that the crowd isn’t asking for a 6 pound laptop but was the 2015 body large? I remember it was 4.5 pounds vs 4 (correct me if I’m wrong). It was slightly thicker, was that a non portable laptop? The extra space could have been used for maintaining ports, battery size, and improving thermals. Maybe they wouldn’t allow the maximum use of a processor but they would be cooled better.
I think the heavy users are concerned the MacBook Pro is becoming the MacBook Air. If we wanted a moderate powered MacBook in 2011, we would buy a MacBook Air. Now you buy was is essentially a very well and full functioning netbook (MacBook) or the Pro which is getting closer to buying a MacBook Air/Pro hybrid. Cutting features in the name of thickness.
Hopefully they will will keep this chassis for several more years and allow the technology to catch up to the thickness. Hopefully getting faster and reducing thermal demands while improving on the keyboard.
Since when is the i9 MBP a “moderately powered MacBook”? And would an extra .5 pounds really matter in terms of thermal? Like I said the Alienware i9 is 9 pounds. The MBP didn’t lose USB-A ports because of its thinness, the MBP was able to become thinner because Apple made the decision to go all in on USB-C. They’re not going backwards now.
The i9 fails to realize its full potential and the GPU is easily limited to the moderate class. Worse, get them both going at once. Potential is different from actual. As far as weight and thermals, the influence will be minimal; the volume and space to move a larger volume of air, along with more surface area to transfer heat is the major influence of sustained performance. Weight will mostly influence short-term performance as it absorbs heat, it’s not designed to transmit it.
Not saying the 2015 chassis (with a thermal beefier thermal system) would allow the i9 to hit its full potential or even the GPU too but it no doubt will help. That’s just physics.
1. Macs are designed to be quiet out of the box. One reason is that MacBooks can be used to record/perform music. Apple sells Logic Pro X, which is recording software. It is preferable with music recording and performance to have PCs which are quiet. Macs + Logic deliver that (which I’ve used in my own recording studio). - The gaming laptops which are being used as competition for the MacBook Pro are almost always loud. Those gaming laptops are not replacements for the MacBook Pro. 2. If the new MacBook Pro i9 (the fastest MacBook of all time) is a moderate class laptop, then all MacBooks would be moderate class laptops. And that might be your argument. If so, what is missed is that MacBooks are not only quieter than gaming laptops, they are lighter than many of gaming laptops and the chassis of MacBooks run cooler under load compared with several gaming laptops. ** Bottom line; raw speed is not the only important feature with a pro level laptop. Apple puts together a feature package in several ways which appeals to many professional computer users.
I agree the macbook is quiet. I am not a music recorder but I would take a guess that simply recording audio is not very taxing but maybe I am wrong. The act of compressing and editing is probably pretty taxing but are you recording at that point? In this case, you could easily throttle the processor in these special cases to meet the needs (noise level) while still letting the beast out when it is needed. Plus, you assume more airflow results in more noise. This is true all else equal but with a large chassis, it allows other options to improve air flow without making much of a difference in sound (same fan RPM but larger fan to move a larger volume).
2. I would hope the "newest macbook" is the fastest macbook, not sure why that is an important point. So, if they put the i9 in the 12" Macbook, would that inherently make it equal to the 15" i9 Macbook or a "high-end" laptop? No. There are other considerations. The GPU is upper-low end even if it could operate at 100% within this chassis.
I still don't understand why we continue to compare it to gaming laptops? Again, not saying it needs to be a gaming laptop. But why artificially limit the computer more than necessary rather than sticking with a plenty light, plenty portable 2015 chassis? (HINT: headlines) If you need more portability, the Air and Macbook are for that market. I don't see the point in trying to turn the Pro into the Air from a chassis standpoint.
Still a great laptop and one of the best on the market but being critical of Apple is the only way to ensure continued improvement.
To anyone replying: Stop with the extremes. Its not an either/or argument......
Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much. What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop. So what i9 is closest to your vision?
You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference. The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation). The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part. Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc. A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane. The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).
Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.
Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state. If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
That said, I still think this is one of the best laptops on the market, I am just holding out for the 10nm Intels now. Although, who knows when that will happen? July 2020?
Assuming Intel makes its latest guess on when it will ship the line, yes.
Exactly, it could be 2021, who knows. If they miss 2020, I will probably have to cave early and get the latest MacBook. Hopefully they will get ARM worked out shortly thereafter.
OK, do you want a 9 pound laptop? For what? Why not use a desktop instead? I’ve got to believe the market for those who need desktop or workstation class performance in a portable device is very small. Apple doesn’t cater to extremely niche markets.
Why do you keep saying a 9 pound laptop? Total strawman. The 2011 MB Pro 17" was an absolute tank and weighed 6.6 pounds. It was also a total workhorse and I had no problem putting up with the weight when travelling to work overseas for a couple of weeks at a time. That's a fairly common professional use case. There are plenty of others. I'm sure the latest slim ones outperform my old beast but imagine the grunt they could put into that form factor with today's tech. FWIW that's what a "pro" laptop should be in my opinion. But yes I agree it's just a marketing term now (unfortunately) and Apple will never put that genie back in the bottle.
Yeah and nobody bought it either...why do you think it was dropped from the lineup? Apple just didn't wake up one day and said, I think we're gonna drop the 17" MacBook Pro, even if people buy it.
Just look at how thick, loud and heavy real gaming laptops are. These laptops take full potential of the CPU and GPU. As the CPUs and GPUs become more powerful, Apple needs to get away from THIN and make the MacBooks THICK BEASTS again.
Clearly you should be using a desktop instead.
For anyone that needs a powerful luggable... you can always get an iMac carrying case and carry your iMac
This i9 MBP isn’t a powerful enough luggable? What have you tried to do with it that you couldn’t?
Well the MBP is a laptop, not a luggable... and as far as I am concerned it is about as powerful as you can make a laptop without further damaging my C-vertebra (1 through 5). Some on here, however, are less than impressed and want Apple to add luggable/transportables to the mix... all I am pointing out is that Apple already makes one... you just have to buy a carrying case to sling over your shoulder.
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
Lol, so Apple fans good, those that have issues... bad ...
I think your comment about Arment basically could be said about many many many of us... some find the faults, some look for the positives
I tend to look for the positives, even though for me... I really do not like "headed" machines and wish apple would focus more attention on the Mac Mini and Mac Pro... Laptops and iPads I tend to view like any consumer electronic good... I don't expect to be able to do what I want with it, it either works for my workflow or it does not... as long as it is a solid machine and there is a fairly wide set of options (which there are)... then they are what they are...
Rene Richie is a Mac enthusiast, and I am sure he sees faults... but he does not dwell on business decisions that he has no control over.
"The OpenCL graphics test in Geekbench 4 gave us an improvement with the added X, going from 42,990 to 52,499 in OpenCL. Metal was dramatically improved, hitting 60,149 with the 560X, versus 38,701 with the 560 —but a fair amount of this gain is from software improvement."
Yeah that's definitely more the Metal 2 improvement if the numbers were taken from previous reviews. It used to always come in behind OpenGL, now it wins a bit.
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
Lol, so Apple fans good, those that have issues... bad ...
I think your comment about Arment basically could be said about many many many of us... some find the faults, some look for the positives
I tend to look for the positives, even though for me... I really do not like "headed" machines and wish apple would focus more attention on the Mac Mini and Mac Pro... Laptops and iPads I tend to view like any consumer electronic good... I don't expect to be able to do what I want with it, it either works for my workflow or it does not... as long as it is a solid machine and there is a fairly wide set of options (which there are)... then they are what they are...
Rene Richie is a Mac enthusiast, and I am sure he sees faults... but he does not dwell on business decisions that he has no control over.
Rene Ritchie often has to correct Leo Laporte on some of the trash he talks about Apple. There are people who only see things in a negative light, always critical and dismissive. Then there are those who think positive and don’t dwell on the negative. I have served on both a church board and a non-profit organization board. When someone suggests a plan or goal the negatives immediately pounce on it and start spouting reasons why it can’t be done, often overwhelming those who want to figure out how to get it done. Any guesses as to which personality type is usually more successful in life and business?
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
Lol, so Apple fans good, those that have issues... bad ...
I think your comment about Arment basically could be said about many many many of us... some find the faults, some look for the positives
Nope, re-read what he said. He said Arment is unrealistically confident that his uninformed opinions are how it should be done period, with no regard to reality. I feel the same way, he's annoying to listen to because of it. The ATP people live in this echo chamber of doom and disappointment. They don't represent normals at all, and are simply too niche to be relevant.
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
Lol, so Apple fans good, those that have issues... bad ...
I think your comment about Arment basically could be said about many many many of us... some find the faults, some look for the positives
I tend to look for the positives, even though for me... I really do not like "headed" machines and wish apple would focus more attention on the Mac Mini and Mac Pro... Laptops and iPads I tend to view like any consumer electronic good... I don't expect to be able to do what I want with it, it either works for my workflow or it does not... as long as it is a solid machine and there is a fairly wide set of options (which there are)... then they are what they are...
Rene Richie is a Mac enthusiast, and I am sure he sees faults... but he does not dwell on business decisions that he has no control over.
In the latest ATP and Talk Show episodes, Arment finally got the correction he needed regarding knowledge of Intel chips. It was a good pullback for him, and good to hear. Hopefully ATP will allow more research and less hot takes in future episodes.
Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much. What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop. So what i9 is closest to your vision?
You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference. The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation). The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part. Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc. A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane. The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).
Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.
Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state. If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
So that it is clearly said, the Core i9 in 2018 MBP15 is running exactly as Intel advertises. It runs in perpetuity at the base clock of 2.9 GHz at 45 Watts for Intel’s given TDP benchmark load, with the Intel specified exceptions of not using the AVX unit and probably not maxing out the CPU+GPU at the same time. It will have 1 core turbo to 4.8 GHz until thermal capacitance runs out. It will have sets of cores turbo to lower frequencies until thermal capacitance runs out.
If the cooling system can maintain 60, 80, 100 W of cooling, those turbo frequencies will last longer. But everyone knows that Apple prioritizes portability and quietness. It doesn’t offer a gaming laptop or a workstation laptop. It’s offering a laptop that is as quiet as possible, as portable as possible, with as much performance as possible in that given package. The market decides on their success.
Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much. What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop. So what i9 is closest to your vision?
You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference. The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation). The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part. Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc. A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane. The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).
Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.
Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state. If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
So that it is clearly said, the Core i9 in 2018 MBP15 is running exactly as Intel advertises. It runs in perpetuity at the base clock of 2.9 GHz at 45 Watts for Intel’s given TDP benchmark load, with the Intel specified exceptions of not using the AVX unit and probably not maxing out the CPU+GPU at the same time. It will have 1 core turbo to 4.8 GHz until thermal capacitance runs out. It will have sets of cores turbo to lower frequencies until thermal capacitance runs out.
If the cooling system can maintain 60, 80, 100 W of cooling, those turbo frequencies will last longer. But everyone knows that Apple prioritizes portability and quietness. It doesn’t offer a gaming laptop or a workstation laptop. It’s offering a laptop that is as quiet as possible, as portable as possible, with as much performance as possible in that given package. The market decides on their success.
One small addition... the power supply must also be able to supply the required power for those turbo frequencies. If the GPU is at full load, it requires power as well as the CPU. The power supply is 87 watts. Therefore I would think the power used by the CPU + GPU + (32GB DDR4) + T2 + motherboard / chipset + SSD <= 87 watts.
Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much. What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop. So what i9 is closest to your vision?
You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference. The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation). The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part. Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc. A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane. The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).
Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.
Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state. If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
So that it is clearly said, the Core i9 in 2018 MBP15 is running exactly as Intel advertises. It runs in perpetuity at the base clock of 2.9 GHz at 45 Watts for Intel’s given TDP benchmark load, with the Intel specified exceptions of not using the AVX unit and probably not maxing out the CPU+GPU at the same time. It will have 1 core turbo to 4.8 GHz until thermal capacitance runs out. It will have sets of cores turbo to lower frequencies until thermal capacitance runs out.
If the cooling system can maintain 60, 80, 100 W of cooling, those turbo frequencies will last longer. But everyone knows that Apple prioritizes portability and quietness. It doesn’t offer a gaming laptop or a workstation laptop. It’s offering a laptop that is as quiet as possible, as portable as possible, with as much performance as possible in that given package. The market decides on their success.
One small addition... the power supply must also be able to supply the required power for those turbo frequencies. If the GPU is at full load, it requires power as well as the CPU. The power supply is 87 watts. Therefore I would think the power used by the CPU + GPU + (32GB DDR4) + T2 + motherboard / chipset + SSD <= 87 watts.
The list keeps on going. The display is probably on order 15 W at max brightness. The 4 TB ports can output 10 W each I think? There will be situations where the in the box power supply won’t be able to draw enough power and it’ll need to use both the battery and the power supply.
1) Thanks for doing a comparison of MagSafe v USB-C. That lines up with my anecdotal experience. I still can't understand why after decades of bellyaching about Apple using proprietary, unlicensed connection options that when Apple finally adopts one because it is inherently better that people still complain.
I would like to note that this will get buried in this review. May I suggest that you do a separate article detailing both MagSafe designs, USB-C (with Apple and 3rd-party cables), and the deep barrel connector they used prior. I'd also like to proffer that you use a pull force gauge so you can get accurate measurements that can be put into a chart.
2) Is the keyboard heating up because of the i9 under max load and/or the RAM? IOW, if you got the entry-level 15" MBP but with 32 GiB DDR4 RAM would you still have that same issue (i.e.: an issue for the entire 2018 15" MBP line in any configuration), mostly an issue with the Intel i9, or an issue with the i9 under load for extended periods of time (like when running benchmarks)?
3) Were you able to do any battery tests to see if the 2018 15" MBP with the larger battery was indeed inline with the 2017 15" MBP under the same load? I can imagine that under load the 2018 models may reduce their time more than the 2017 with the smaller battery, but if you can get more work done then it could offset that loss.
4) Since they kept the weight the same YoY while increasing the battery capacity (which one report shows that it's both larger and heavier than last year's battery—so it's not lighter battery tech) I assume they milled the top chassis even more to lose the weight and make the space. Since this makes up the structure of the MBP did you find this to be less durable, dissipate heat worse/better since it also acts as a heatsink, or any other potential problems with removing several ounces of aluminium from the frame? If not, have they really been wasting all metal and adding unneeded weight all these years, or do you think that they've engineered something stronger (like they did with the iPhone S series over the iPhone 6 series after Bendghazi)?
I have an issue with the USB-C vs Magsafe argument here. I am not saying I know the answer; however, the article notes that it takes less force when pulled relatively straight out. But when someone is walking and catches the cable of a laptop, the force more often than not is not relatively straight out. My experiences have been the cable is pulled at a sharper angle than 30-40 degrees from the insertion angle on the horizontal plane, not to mention its usually pulled down at an angle sharper than 30 degrees. The magsafe, in my experience, de-couples even easier to forces applied perpendicular to laptop chassis in both planes, especially the vertical plane(almost too easy sometimes). Does USB-C reflect that case? I would imagine it is more likely to bind (as it goes into the device) and pull the laptop. Also, say it dis-engages easily, does this perpendicular pressure wear on the I/O port? The engaging/disengaging of the magsafe at any angle doesn't bother the port. I just can't imagine a port that is specifically designed for break away will not outperform the USB-C that is not specifically designed for it.
Curious on the feedback. Will be interesting to see how the accidental damage reports play out over the next couple of years.
I'm sure force requirements for USB-C increase as you increase the angle, whereas MagSafe it may even be less tension because it can act like a fulcrum at one end to pull the magnet off the other. That's why I'd like to see a chart.
As they state in the article, if your cable is still going to be plugged in despite the all-day battery that didn't exist back before MagSafe and it will be a tripping hazard that could potentially pull your MBP to the floor there are plenty of 3rd-party options in which to choose from.
There wouldn't be 3rd party options if it weren't for MagSafe.
Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much. What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop. So what i9 is closest to your vision?
You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference. The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation). The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part. Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc. A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane. The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).
Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.
Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state. If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
So that it is clearly said, the Core i9 in 2018 MBP15 is running exactly as Intel advertises. It runs in perpetuity at the base clock of 2.9 GHz at 45 Watts for Intel’s given TDP benchmark load, with the Intel specified exceptions of not using the AVX unit and probably not maxing out the CPU+GPU at the same time. It will have 1 core turbo to 4.8 GHz until thermal capacitance runs out. It will have sets of cores turbo to lower frequencies until thermal capacitance runs out.
If the cooling system can maintain 60, 80, 100 W of cooling, those turbo frequencies will last longer. But everyone knows that Apple prioritizes portability and quietness. It doesn’t offer a gaming laptop or a workstation laptop. It’s offering a laptop that is as quiet as possible, as portable as possible, with as much performance as possible in that given package. The market decides on their success.
One small addition... the power supply must also be able to supply the required power for those turbo frequencies. If the GPU is at full load, it requires power as well as the CPU. The power supply is 87 watts. Therefore I would think the power used by the CPU + GPU + (32GB DDR4) + T2 + motherboard / chipset + SSD <= 87 watts.
The list keeps on going. The display is probably on order 15 W at max brightness. The 4 TB ports can output 10 W each I think? There will be situations where the in the box power supply won’t be able to draw enough power and it’ll need to use both the battery and the power supply.
This is not the first time that the adapter couldn't deal with the computer under absolute maximum power load. Every single Intel MacBook and MacBook Pro has been able to draw from the AC adapter and the battery in cases of extreme load, by design and intent.
Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much. What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop. So what i9 is closest to your vision?
You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference. The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation). The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part. Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc. A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane. The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).
Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.
Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state. If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
So that it is clearly said, the Core i9 in 2018 MBP15 is running exactly as Intel advertises. It runs in perpetuity at the base clock of 2.9 GHz at 45 Watts for Intel’s given TDP benchmark load, with the Intel specified exceptions of not using the AVX unit and probably not maxing out the CPU+GPU at the same time. It will have 1 core turbo to 4.8 GHz until thermal capacitance runs out. It will have sets of cores turbo to lower frequencies until thermal capacitance runs out.
If the cooling system can maintain 60, 80, 100 W of cooling, those turbo frequencies will last longer. But everyone knows that Apple prioritizes portability and quietness. It doesn’t offer a gaming laptop or a workstation laptop. It’s offering a laptop that is as quiet as possible, as portable as possible, with as much performance as possible in that given package. The market decides on their success.
One small addition... the power supply must also be able to supply the required power for those turbo frequencies. If the GPU is at full load, it requires power as well as the CPU. The power supply is 87 watts. Therefore I would think the power used by the CPU + GPU + (32GB DDR4) + T2 + motherboard / chipset + SSD <= 87 watts.
The list keeps on going. The display is probably on order 15 W at max brightness. The 4 TB ports can output 10 W each I think? There will be situations where the in the box power supply won’t be able to draw enough power and it’ll need to use both the battery and the power supply.
This is not the first time that the adapter couldn't deal with the computer under absolute maximum power load. Every single Intel MacBook and MacBook Pro has been able to draw from the AC adapter and the battery in cases of extreme load, by design and intent.
Yup! The education process has to be repetitive, no?
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
Some people think of Rene Ritchie as just an Apple shill (and sometimes he can be) but I think of him more as someone who explains Apple’s decisions really well. Explaining is not the same as defending. Apple hired Serenity Caldwell for their communications team. I think they should hire Rene Ritchie too.
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
Some people think of Rene Ritchie as just an Apple shill (and sometimes he can be) but I think of him more as someone who explains Apple’s decisions really well. Explaining is not the same as defending. Apple hired Serenity Caldwell for their communications team. I think they should hire Rene Ritchie too.
The problem is that the negative brigade labels anyone who utters something positive about Apple as a shill, an apologist, a sycophant, a fanboy. Only negative opinions are accepted as being unbiased. It happens daily on sites like this one. Someone posts a criticism about Apple and anyone who dares to disagree with that criticism is shouted down as a paid shill. Just as in politics these days if you don’t agree with me you are my enemy and I must discredit you
Until someone shows an example of the i9 "done right" that is not a massive brick and gives you substantial better performance/thermals... then we can only assume that increasing the size a smidgen will not change the dynamics much. What we have is two examples, one like Dell/Apple that balances towards being a laptop and the other is the "i9 done right" which is a luggable and not really a laptop. So what i9 is closest to your vision?
You talk about CPU and GPU being throttled as if a smidgen more space will make a difference. The CPU is 45TDP at the base clock at ambient temperature (a couple generations ago 45TDP was about the maximum for the laptop), as you increase speed it will increase ... I have seen testing say more than 80 watts... maybe even close to 100 watts (though I am not sure of the 100 watts observation). The GPU by itself (low-end as it is) is a 65 TDP part. Then there is the DDR4 RAM which has to be reasonably significant in TDP, SSD etc. A smidgen more space, a smidgen more airflow... is just IMHO not going to make as big a difference as you seem to think it... then, of course, there is the associated battery drain (I think, but I am not sure if I am correct)... the battery can increase about 20% more before you would not be able to bring it on a plane. The power supply for the laptop would also have to grow... significantly... adding size and weight there (as well as having to be custom since USB-C is maxed at 100 watts).
Understand though that by design (CPU) if you are running AVX instructions (specialized vector instructions) you will not be able to run at the base clock... I cannot find anywhere that Intel actually states what the base-clock is for AVX instructions.
Because of these numbers, I just cannot see a slightly larger case having the effect that you state. If you can show me a vendor's product done right that meets what you are saying, it would give your argument much more weight. If no vendor has done it, I can only assume it has not been done because unicorns don't currently exist.
So that it is clearly said, the Core i9 in 2018 MBP15 is running exactly as Intel advertises. It runs in perpetuity at the base clock of 2.9 GHz at 45 Watts for Intel’s given TDP benchmark load, with the Intel specified exceptions of not using the AVX unit and probably not maxing out the CPU+GPU at the same time. It will have 1 core turbo to 4.8 GHz until thermal capacitance runs out. It will have sets of cores turbo to lower frequencies until thermal capacitance runs out.
If the cooling system can maintain 60, 80, 100 W of cooling, those turbo frequencies will last longer. But everyone knows that Apple prioritizes portability and quietness. It doesn’t offer a gaming laptop or a workstation laptop. It’s offering a laptop that is as quiet as possible, as portable as possible, with as much performance as possible in that given package. The market decides on their success.
Are we getting a bit too focussed on the sustained performance of encodes? I’m no videographer but isn’t the ability to handle short performance bursts during editing more relevant?
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
Some people think of Rene Ritchie as just an Apple shill (and sometimes he can be) but I think of him more as someone who explains Apple’s decisions really well. Explaining is not the same as defending. Apple hired Serenity Caldwell for their communications team. I think they should hire Rene Ritchie too.
The problem is that the negative brigade labels anyone who utters something positive about Apple as a shill, an apologist, a sycophant, a fanboy. Only negative opinions are accepted as being unbiased. It happens daily on sites like this one. Someone posts a criticism about Apple and anyone who dares to disagree with that criticism is shouted down as a paid shill. Just as in politics these days if you don’t agree with me you are my enemy and I must discredit you
You should see my email on this review alone. Eight "you suck, this is the best laptop ever," Six "you shill, this is the worst laptop ever."
It's almost like things are complex, and don't mean the same thing to everybody.
I’m curious what percentage of the buying public needs a laptop that has the same amount of power as a desktop. Isn’t the whole point of a laptop portability? The Alienware core i9 weighs 9 pounds. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lugging that around. Maybe it was a mistake for Apple (and others) to put the i9 in a ultrabook form factor laptop. People say just make it thicker but I remember when people complained about the 3rd gen iPad being thicker and heavier. If the 15” MBP was now 6 (or more) pounds would people be cheering that? I doubt it. Wired dinged this laptop for not being true 4K. Is that really noticeable in dat to day use? And what would a 4K screen do to battery life and price? The machine is already very expensive. IMO if this machine isn’t powerful enough for somebody then they probably should be using a desktop.
I think there is nothing in your comment that I disagree with.
A fact that often gets lost, is the "Pro" name has more to do with marketing than anything else. Are you less of a Pro if you make money on a MacBook Air, or a Mac mini? The gatekeeping surrounding the name, and complaints about the Pro not catering to absolutely every conceivable use case is ridiculous.
The i9 MBP won't sell a ton of machines. I don't think that it will break the "low single digits" that was talked about for the Mac Pro in its heyday-- but this is a number we'll never know for sure outside the Cupertino walls.
John Gruber and Marco Arment were discussing this on the latest Talk Show podcast. They both agreed the Pro nomenclature was more marketing than anything else. To me though people are too hung up on specs. The question should be does this device do what I need it to do and does it do it well. I’ll bet the percentage of people who need the full power of an i9 in a laptop form factor is small.
I don't generally have time for Talk Show, but I'll have to take a listen. It will possibly be one of the few things that Arment and I agree about.
Don't waste your time. Arment is so insufferably negative on every single show I had to stop listening to his ATP podcast. Every single thing Apple does the three hosts rag on. What's worse is that they pontificate on every topic with no hesitancy and such absolute certainty about their opinion, even ones they are ill informed about and are just speculating. If you want thoughtful analysis where the host discusses Apple topics from an objective point of view, any podcast with Jason Snell is great. While he is an unabashed fan of Apple, Rene Ritchie has the most actual knowledge of the tech he talks about and has some of the best in depth interviews of experts on his Vector podcast.
Some people think of Rene Ritchie as just an Apple shill (and sometimes he can be) but I think of him more as someone who explains Apple’s decisions really well. Explaining is not the same as defending. Apple hired Serenity Caldwell for their communications team. I think they should hire Rene Ritchie too.
The problem is that the negative brigade labels anyone who utters something positive about Apple as a shill, an apologist, a sycophant, a fanboy. Only negative opinions are accepted as being unbiased. It happens daily on sites like this one. Someone posts a criticism about Apple and anyone who dares to disagree with that criticism is shouted down as a paid shill. Just as in politics these days if you don’t agree with me you are my enemy and I must discredit you
You should see my email on this review alone. Eight "you suck, this is the best laptop ever," Six "you shill, this is the worst laptop ever."
It's almost like things are complex, and don't mean the same thing to everybody.
Comments
I think your comment about Arment basically could be said about many many many of us... some find the faults, some look for the positives
I tend to look for the positives, even though for me... I really do not like "headed" machines and wish apple would focus more attention on the Mac Mini and Mac Pro... Laptops and iPads I tend to view like any consumer electronic good... I don't expect to be able to do what I want with it, it either works for my workflow or it does not... as long as it is a solid machine and there is a fairly wide set of options (which there are)... then they are what they are...
Rene Richie is a Mac enthusiast, and I am sure he sees faults... but he does not dwell on business decisions that he has no control over.
Yeah that's definitely more the Metal 2 improvement if the numbers were taken from previous reviews. It used to always come in behind OpenGL, now it wins a bit.
In the latest ATP and Talk Show episodes, Arment finally got the correction he needed regarding knowledge of Intel chips. It was a good pullback for him, and good to hear. Hopefully ATP will allow more research and less hot takes in future episodes.
If the cooling system can maintain 60, 80, 100 W of cooling, those turbo frequencies will last longer. But everyone knows that Apple prioritizes portability and quietness. It doesn’t offer a gaming laptop or a workstation laptop. It’s offering a laptop that is as quiet as possible, as portable as possible, with as much performance as possible in that given package. The market decides on their success.