kpom

Intel's chip design, not Apple's choices, reason behind Thunderbolt 3 & RAM issues in new MacBook P

kpom

October 2016

wood1208 said:

Intel's Skylake processor is 2015 story. Kaby lake is 2016. Intel will release ICE lake 10nm end of 2017. If I was Apple, I would skip Kaby lake and pick up ICE lake in 2017 for Spring 2018 release of Macbook pro that Apple can design without any compromise.

I wouldn't be surprised if they skip Kaby Lake (but then we'll get complaints about how out of date the MacBook is next year). At the same time, the latest specs are out, and as predicted, the Skylake chips aren't significantly faster than the Broadwell chips they replaced. That's also the case with Kaby Lake vs Skylake (almost all the gains are from clock speed increases, except for h.265 encoding).

They got the basics right with the new MacBooks. If the price were $200 less about 80% of the complaints on web forums would go away.

Two of four Thunderbolt 3 ports in new 13" MacBook Pro with Touch Bar have reduced speeds

kpom

October 2016

zimmermann said:

prismatics said:

The comment section shows that the author of the article has not made the cause for the issue clear enough.

Processors today use PCIe to connect everything from Storage controllers, high speed I/O like USB, Thunderbolt and other stuff including SD-Card readers and Graphic Cards (or discrete GPU in case of macbook). And on each processor model there is only a specific number of these lanes available. This means that since Apple has to rely on Intel on this issue, they can't simply change this behavior by putting in a second controller, it's simply not possible because there is no dual core i7 Chip with enough lanes. Thats why Apple has chosen to use the PCH-supplied PCIe-Lanes.

PCH is an additional chip (which is integrated directly in the processor package on some models) which connects to the processor via a seperate high speed bus and it gives you many things included USB, keyboard support, audio and storage interface and additional (about half speed) PCIe-Lanes in one single chip. What I think is the case is that Apple is using these lanes because the processor itself does not supply enough PCIe-lanes.

So obviously, there is nothing to be added from a non-technical viewpoint, because it's not about power consumption or other marketing decisions, it's simply because Intel does not make the chips Apple needs for four Thunderbolt 3 full speed capable ports.

Still, most of the time Apple will not bow down to restrictions others set. If they felt the need to offer four fast ports they would have made it happen. So apparently Apple does not feel the need. I do, I think this machine is somewhat crippled by this design choice. Apple is not earning many sympathy points from me on this one.

Apple can't create more PCIe lanes than what Intel supplies. This is far from the first time Apple bumped up against Intel's limitation. Remember the original Thunderbolt MacBook Pros shipped with USB 2.0 when the rest of the market used USB 3.0 and third party controllers.

Apple's alternative was to supply 2 TB3 and 2 USB 3.1 gen 2 ports. They opted to provide 4 TB3 ports, albeit 2 with somewhat reduced performance, which is still better than a USB 3.1 gen 2 port.

Some users complain about poor phone call sound on Apple's iPhone 7 & 7 Plus

kpom

September 2016

eightzero said:

howie_isaacks said:

Here's an out there idea... Why not call AppleCare instead of complaining to a blog? I know that's such a hard concept to comprehend, but maybe these people should try that first. The sound quality on my iPhone 7 is awesome. I have no complaints, and if I did, I would contact Apple about it first.

Because AppleCare will instantly solve the issue, and all will be well? I think the issue here is that a premium priced, much hyped phone doesn't work well as a phone. That might be worth a discussion.

Out of several million of any consumer electronic product sold, there will be some with defects. Also, new hardware often has software glitches that don't become known until the devices are out in the wild (since it's impossible to test for every possible combination of software, carrier, firmware, etc.).