Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New MBP in Sept?
- Thread starter ryanlabe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well looks Like I don't have a choice, but to get the next revision. I just want 32gb of ram, but it's never going to happen until DDR4.
The odds of seeing a refresh is slim given the delays with Broadwell. If they do anything it may be a minor spec bump. So much so, I think if you need to buy now, go for it. The speed difference won't be that big between the current model a minor speed bump
They may do what they did to the MBA earlier this year - small Haswell spec bump, possibly a small price decrease but that's probably unlikely, just so there are 'new' machines for Christmas.
Though as maflynn says, Broadwell isn't due until probably 2015 now, so I'd buy one now if you need it.
Though as maflynn says, Broadwell isn't due until probably 2015 now, so I'd buy one now if you need it.
That's what I'm thinking will happen, though overall, I'd say the price reduction is the better part of the what apple did with the MBA so it would be nice to see a price cut.
Well, that's what I hope's going to happen!
Though the reason I think it's not that likely is because I think they lowered the MBA price to distance it from the 13" rMBP. Before, there was what - $150ish difference between the MBA and rMBP with similar specs?Lowering the rMBP will just bring it back closer to the MBA price, which makes the high-end MBA quite an unattractive offer. I'm not really sure of the margins on each product though, so of course it may be beneficial to lower the rMBP to entice more customers, if there's enough 'wiggle room' so to speak in their margins!
I'd like to see a reduction in price of the high-end rMBPs though - or at least making the BTO upgrades on storage cheaper.
Apple probably has more "wiggle room" in their margins than the price reduction they gave to the Air as those "retina" displays cost more than non-retina ones, but not THAT much. Remember reading that the panel for the 15" model cost a bit more than $150 when it was released in 2012, but it's probably less for the 13" model and this price was two years ago, so prices have come down since then as the specs are still the same.
The only reason why I'd see them not lowering the price of the Pro is trying to keep it as a more "premium" device than the Air.
The only reason why I'd see them not lowering the price of the Pro is trying to keep it as a more "premium" device than the Air.
Curios - why?
I registred just for this question!
So I'm curios here, because this is the ONE thing that I care about - 32GB RAM. Why is it technically not possible until DDR4? On the desktop side it works with DDR3 i believe? (apologies if this is obvious!)
/ AS
I registred just for this question!
So I'm curios here, because this is the ONE thing that I care about - 32GB RAM. Why is it technically not possible until DDR4? On the desktop side it works with DDR3 i believe? (apologies if this is obvious!)
/ AS
The main reason why the 13" models at least don't support it is because the CPU doesn't support anything beyond 16GB (that's according to Intel's own product specifications). With the 15" it's probably the chipset that's the problem as Intel's product specifications state the maximum amount of supported RAM at 32GB for the CPU.
The Mac Pro and 27" iMacs do support 32GB so for the 15" it doesn't have anything to do with software.
The Mac Pro and 27" iMacs do support 32GB so for the 15" it doesn't have anything to do with software.
I won't say it's obvious, but there's some discussion here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1683493/
That thread is about the Mac mini, but the memory support, and the number of slots available (two) is the same with the MacBook Pro.
So, to simplify - the CPU can support 32GB, but that would require 4 slots.
There could be 16GB sticks announced, but it sounds like they will need some kind of firmware update to get them to work in a Mac, and Apple is unlikely to provide a firmware update (when DDR4 will be coming along soon anyway, along with new chipsets/Macs to support that.)
That thread is about the Mac mini, but the memory support, and the number of slots available (two) is the same with the MacBook Pro.
So, to simplify - the CPU can support 32GB, but that would require 4 slots.
There could be 16GB sticks announced, but it sounds like they will need some kind of firmware update to get them to work in a Mac, and Apple is unlikely to provide a firmware update (when DDR4 will be coming along soon anyway, along with new chipsets/Macs to support that.)
I'd rather see a price reduction over a spec bump. Perhaps lower all 13-inch and the Iris Pro 15-inch by $100 while dropping the 750M model by $200. Apple should also eliminate the 2.6 GHz CPU and (possibly) the 1 TB SSD options from the base 15-inch so that there continues to be price separation between the two version.
It would be useful for photographers who are working with multiple large RAW files, or 3D modellers etc. For the normal user, 16GB (even 8GB) is more than enough at this point.
With 32GB of RAM available along with a powerful CPU, the MBP could become a true desktop replacement for a lot of people.
If the purpose is to do professional photo editing and 3D modelling I don't think a laptop is really the right tool for the job regarless of how much RAM it has...
Specially with 3D modelling when you begin to reach the point where 32 over 16 GB of RAM begins to make sense you're talking about models with so many polygons (for non real time applications a single model can literally consist of millions of polygons) that the CPU and GPU can't keep up with the workload.
Specially with 3D modelling when you begin to reach the point where 32 over 16 GB of RAM begins to make sense you're talking about models with so many polygons (for non real time applications a single model can literally consist of millions of polygons) that the CPU and GPU can't keep up with the workload.
You'll find that what Intel specifies a CPU can handle RAM wise and what it can actually handle in reality are very different. I've seen on many occasions where what Intel says is the maximum is really 1/4th what the chip can actually address when presented with enough memory.
The reason Apple doesn't put 32GB in their notebooks is because it is prohibitively expensive with the space available. They would need to use RAM chips that are twice the density than they currently use to fit that much RAM in the notebook without using more of the logic board for the memory and those chips are very expensive.
It's the same reason they aren't offering a 2TB SSD option. It can be done, the chips are available it's just too expensive at this moment.
The reason Apple doesn't put 32GB in their notebooks is because it is prohibitively expensive with the space available. They would need to use RAM chips that are twice the density than they currently use to fit that much RAM in the notebook without using more of the logic board for the memory and those chips are very expensive.
It's the same reason they aren't offering a 2TB SSD option. It can be done, the chips are available it's just too expensive at this moment.
Thanks all
First of all, thanks all of you who gave the detailed explanation of 16GB vs 32GB in the MBP! In response to whether or not it's important, from my own horizon and the reason I want it so badly is because of the softwares I use. I work in feature-films (2k and 4k productions). Two softwares stands out; one uses disk-based playback (hence the PCIe-flash storage is important and great!), and the other one uses a RAM-playback (and... here 32GB could be good).
I just ordered the current maxed-out 15" MBP now, as a potential CPU upgrade doesn't really matter for me, and 32GB Ram seems unlikely (again, thanks all for the replies).
Cheers,
AS
First of all, thanks all of you who gave the detailed explanation of 16GB vs 32GB in the MBP! In response to whether or not it's important, from my own horizon and the reason I want it so badly is because of the softwares I use. I work in feature-films (2k and 4k productions). Two softwares stands out; one uses disk-based playback (hence the PCIe-flash storage is important and great!), and the other one uses a RAM-playback (and... here 32GB could be good).
I just ordered the current maxed-out 15" MBP now, as a potential CPU upgrade doesn't really matter for me, and 32GB Ram seems unlikely (again, thanks all for the replies).
Cheers,
AS
So why didn't you buy an iMac or Mac Pro? The iMac lets you have the 32GB of RAM with both a faster CPU and GPU while the Mac Pro lets you have even faster everything. The baseline Mac Pro is even cheaper than the maxed out Macbook Pro...
Maybe because he wants mobility and needs working when not at his desk. I think 32GB would be nice in a MBP and in a MacMini. Another path would be bring something like 80Gbps PCIe storage. This way the secondary storage would run around half speed as RAM, which would provide enough bandwidth for doing big data processing tasks.
I wonder if a big RAID0 with something like 16 x 128GB SSD modules wouldn't allow making a computer without any RAM installed.
He may need to move around, but with that kind of work you're also going to need a large storage array (un or low compression 4k video takes up huge amounts of space) so it's not exactly practical to the kind of work on the move.
You're going to need a power outlet everywhere and thus carrying around an iMac wouldn't be that much less practical. I know a lot of DJ's and electronic music artists (the difference being that DJ's just play music while actual artists compose them on the spot) bring their iMacs instead of laptops to concerts.
You're going to need a power outlet everywhere and thus carrying around an iMac wouldn't be that much less practical. I know a lot of DJ's and electronic music artists (the difference being that DJ's just play music while actual artists compose them on the spot) bring their iMacs instead of laptops to concerts.
Yes, I don't see much use for a laptop with more than 16GB of RAM for most professional uses. Nearly everything someone does with 32GB he can do with 8GB, although at a slower speed. On the other hand, a lot of stuff done in universities and maybe military/intelligence agencies need more than 16GB. Ok, you could do with 16GB, but you usually develop a suboptimal algorithm in a couple of hours or days just to get results sooner as a proof of concept.
I think Apple should offer something like the "Macbook Sci". It could be a little thicker than a standard rMBP to give room for additional RAM and maybe an array of PCIe SSDs and bigger battery. It would be probably lighter than a mobile Lenovo workstation and would provide enough power that prototypes need for working. Currently I access my MacMini remotely since my rMBP has "only" 8GB and the Mini has 16GB. Although it's just a Core2Duo, RAM has proved more important to my current work.
I don't think people should respond with "if you want 32gb of ram, then maybe you shouldn't be looking at a laptop".
Most of us professionals can't be on a desk all day and mainly work on the go. Having 32gb of ram minimum definitely gives us the wiggle room we need when doing intensive tasks.
I also work in the video industry where deadlines come at you like a fast ball. If I can get some work done on my 1-2hour drive back each time(sitting in the back), this would make a huge difference on meeting my deadline.
16GB is barely enough to run Adobe premiere and 1080p files, let alone 4k. 32GB allows me to dynamically work with after effects simultaneously, which is HUGE since AE snorts RAM like it does coke.
I have a Mac Pro with 48GB of ram and it gets eaten up when previewing 4k/5k r3d files.
Most of us professionals can't be on a desk all day and mainly work on the go. Having 32gb of ram minimum definitely gives us the wiggle room we need when doing intensive tasks.
I also work in the video industry where deadlines come at you like a fast ball. If I can get some work done on my 1-2hour drive back each time(sitting in the back), this would make a huge difference on meeting my deadline.
16GB is barely enough to run Adobe premiere and 1080p files, let alone 4k. 32GB allows me to dynamically work with after effects simultaneously, which is HUGE since AE snorts RAM like it does coke.
I have a Mac Pro with 48GB of ram and it gets eaten up when previewing 4k/5k r3d files.
When Steve Jobs came back to Apple he basically made it a religion for the company to not overstretch itself and focus on a few really good products than a lot of mediocre products. Adding a niché product like that the lineup is basically going flat out against the policies of a man who decided that a company that was making well over a dozen different machines should reduce this to just 4 (including both laptops and desktops).
Like I already mentioned, the 13" model can't support any more than 16GB because of the CPU. As for the 15" model, they don't have RAM modules with a high enough density in mass production to get 32GB in the existing number of slots. If they wanted to make a machine with 32GB, which is something probably a 10th of a single percent of their actual customer base has any kind of use for, they'd have to change the layout of the board or maybe even the layout of the whole machine because of needing to fit a bigger board.