How is it stupid? The "stupid one port C" is for the MacBook. I am 100% certain they won't be releasing a MacBook PRO with just one port C anytime soon. Different computers for different needs. Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't make it "stupid".
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.
Upcoming MBP 15 refresh - hold off or buy now?
- Thread starter Donka
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How is it stupid? The "stupid one port C" is for the MacBook. I am 100% certain they won't be releasing a MacBook PRO with just one port C anytime soon. Different computers for different needs. Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't make it "stupid".
Your post left me bent out of shape and my nose out of joint, and kind of angry - but not at you, rather, at Apple...
Those rather nifty charts and the stuff I've seen courtesy of my connects with Intel (running Win 8.1 and 10 demos) and the recent deployment of 10.10.3 enabling me to run two 4k monitors as Dell designed them - none of those specs, performance charts, and hundreds of rants on the Apple Discussions and MR forums mean NOTHING if Apple doesn't put out drivers or allow 3rd-party companies to write drivers and software that enables that nifty new hardware down the pipeline!
When 10.10.3 came out, it's like I got two new displays for free!
<rant directed at Apple> But then I remembered the conversations I had at the Apple Store with the "Graphics Genius" or Apple Support (engineering) two months ago that "it's the limitations of the hardware" or "it's the limitations of DisplayPort", and the Graphics Genius's forwarding to me a breakout box that is Windows-only.
I'm hoping for new hardware, but also for Apple to get off their collective cans - when the hardware comes out, not a year later... </rant directed at Apple>
FWIW, there's always "a chance" but I don't think it's likely.
I don't expect a full redesign until early 2016. There's a small chance we'll see it on the 13" this fall as skylake will be available, but the next version of the quad core chips after Broadwell (I forget if they're calling them skylake or something else) won't be available until 2016, so no redesigned 15" this fall.
I do expect an updated 15" this summer.
Your post left me bent out of shape and my nose out of joint, and kind of angry - but not at you, rather, at Apple...
Those rather nifty charts and the stuff I've seen courtesy of my connects with Intel (running Win 8.1 and 10 demos) and the recent deployment of 10.10.3 enabling me to run two 4k monitors as Dell designed them - none of those specs, performance charts, and hundreds of rants on the Apple Discussions and MR forums mean NOTHING if Apple doesn't put out drivers or allow 3rd-party companies to write drivers and software that enables that nifty new hardware down the pipeline!
When 10.10.3 came out, it's like I got two new displays for free!
<rant directed at Apple> But then I remembered the conversations I had at the Apple Store with the "Graphics Genius" or Apple Support (engineering) two months ago that "it's the limitations of the hardware" or "it's the limitations of DisplayPort", and the Graphics Genius's forwarding to me a breakout box that is Windows-only.
I'm hoping for new hardware, but also for Apple to get off their collective cans - when the hardware comes out, not a year later... </rant directed at Apple>
Sorry about that.
Yep, unfortunately Apple has been neglecting OS X (This isn't new, of course.) for a while. Updating behind-the-scenes stuff just isn't as cool as an entirely new interface (Not disparaging Yosemite of course. Love the new interface) or a new app. In the new ADHD-esque world where people are constantly stimulated by the new, slow, gradual improvement (Hence all of the 'Apple is dead' posts that come about every couple of years. Journalists have failed to understand Apple's mode of working: Major innovation-->Small refinement-->Small iteration-->Small improvement-->Major innovation (Cycle repeats.) is underrated.
I remember being rather satisfied with the OS X Snow Leopard update, which had plenty of 'under-the-hood' technologies improvements (But then again, I was easily impressed by the 3D dock in OS X Leopard, and thought it was the best feature ever, back then.). 64 bit support, Grand Central Dispatch, OpenCL, QuickTime X, ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20090929105529/http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
Back to graphics: The 750M was woefully underpowered back when it was launched with the rMBP (770M was a lot better), and 2 years down the line, it's absolutely horrendous.
Graphics hardware has come a long way since my first MacBook Pro (unibody MacBook Pro, nVidia 8800 GT with 256MB VRAM, I think.). So has CPUs.
The 970M and 980M (If you're interested, here's a post about it on AnandTech) is ridiculously impressive.
Mobile graphics has been progressing at a ludicrously fast pace. nVidia is the Intel of GPUs (Discrete mobile, and discrete desktop). The only advantage of AMD at this point (for both the GPU and CPU space) is the price (Not really my concern here, nor is it usually for the typical Apple prosumer) and the commitment to open standards (nVidia, like Intel, likes to create its own standards. It does have its own benefits, but the drawback is vendor lock-in.).
There are basically two camps here (I'm part of the mythical third camp) on MacRumors, in terms of GPU on Apple laptops.
The first camp: dGPU is dead, Intel integrated GPUs are good enough. Intel Iris 80%(?) of 750M's performance (Very low to begin with).
The second camp: dGPU isn't dead, but reserved for high-end MBP models. AMD, not nVidia.
The (rare/inexistent) third camp (Me): dGPU isn't dead. Probably will be reserved for high-end MBP/for all the redesigned Skylake MBPs (see below. Last point on my forum reply.). nVidia (Maxwell).
Apple has shown that they're willing to play vendors off of each other, and doesn't get nostalgic in terms of corporate relations. They'll pick the best option on the market.
- CPU: PowerPC--> Intel, despite insulting Intel and calling Pentium a 'snail'.
- GPU: nVidia --> AMD --> nVidia --> AMD (Current) --> nVidia(?)
Unless AMD is willing to give Apple a significant discount, and also increase performance of their mobile dGPUs, I have a feeling that Apple will return to nVidia (nVidia like their profit margins. They turned down the 'next-gen' consoles (Xbox One, PS4) and gave it to AMD because supplying dGPUs to the consoles didn't yield high enough of a profit margin. But their performance is insane, like Intel for CPUs.).
Regarding 10.10.3 and dual 4K displays... (How do you run it by the way? Are you on a rMBP, with 1 running off of HDMI and the other off of Thunderbolt, both Thunderbolt, or 1 Thunderbolt and daisy-chaining?)
I was never aware of any issue with the software side of things for graphics. What happened with the update?
But then again, I did hear about horrendous UI lag with the Retina laptops (Apparently still not resolved with the current-gen rMBPs, and is still manifested in the rMB 12"). The lag is probably on the software side, which will probably be fixed in OS X 2015 (as I presume it'll be the first fully Retina OS. Makes sense though, as the MacBook Air line is essentially discontinued, so essentially all Mac laptops and desktops are Retina-class. I suspect the 5K Cinema Display will be launched during WWDC 2015, along with a redesigned Mac Mini (Made some predictions about both on this thread).).
And about graphics/general hardware, and a forward-looking statement, and why discrete GPUs on the MacBook Pro will not disappear (I'm sure I've argued about it before on another thread but I'll reiterate the points here):
The new retina MacBook 12" is the MacBook Air, essentially. The MacBook Air 11"/13" is, by this point, vintage hardware. The 2015 update is the last update that they'll get, and after they're discontinued, there won't be a new line replacing the MBA 11"/13" (In the most ideal situation, the MBA 11"/13" would be renamed the MacBook, and the rMB 12" would be called the MacBook Air instead. However, the logistical confusion is problematic (The 13" MacBook Pro was first released as the MacBook Aluminium 13", and then called the MacBook Pro 13" when it was released. Likewise, the MacBook (White) was called MacBook, changed to MacBook White, and then back to MacBook which was confusing in terms of branding)).
So we've established that the rMB 12" is the new MacBook Air (Built on the same ideology that Steve Jobs had in mind for the original MBA: Thin, light, portable, long battery life, no compromises on keyboard (Debatable, but we'll leave this debate for other people. We're talking about graphics hardware here on this thread.), trackpad and screen).
We've also established that the MacBook Air is a discontinued line (Superseded by the retina MacBook 12"). So that's out of the way.
What do we have left?
The MacBook Pro.
Before we explore that, we have to look for inspiration at Apple's other product lines: The Mac desktop, the (i)Phone and the tablet.
- Mac desktop: Mac Mini (Redesigned, 2015/16). iMac (4K). Mac Pro
- Tablet: iPad Mini. iPad Air. iPad Pro (2015/16).
- Phone: iPhone 5S. iPhone 6. iPhone 6 Plus.
3 things. 3 product lines (So a reverse scenario of this: https://youtu.be/vZYlhShD2oQ?t=138)
If you notice, Apple likes to have a clear gradation.
Good. Better. Best.
For the laptop line I think they'll just reduce it to 'Good' and 'Best'. 'MacBook' and 'MacBook Pro'. (No point in having 'Better' in the form of the 'Air' because the difference between the MacBook 12" and MacBook Air 11"/13" is so small. They're both built off of the same underlying philosophy of the first MacBook Air.)
As such, I argue that Apple will be looking to strongly differentiate between the MacBook, and the MacBook Pro.
With that, proper hardware specs (Their CPUs are fine. It's the GPUs that need work on.) is in order.
nVidia 970M at the best scenario, 960M at the slightly optimistic and hopeful scenario, 950M at the :/ but still alright scenario.
Someone did their homework... I hope Apple did too! The product lines you mention sound like a "decent" solution. As it currently is I can imagine them releasing a 14 and/or 16" rMBP. The current 12" Macbook doesn't boost a edge-to-edge screen but a new 14-16" could. These could replace the current 13 and 15" line-up with out enlarging the overall footprint.
Talking about a new line-up. With the possibility of Sky Lake being introduced at the "redesign" it could very well be possible they included a BTO quad-core option for the new 13/14" Pro. Heat-wise it's a 7W upgrade from the currently residing i7 Dual-core (I read somewhere the new broadwell line would use around 35-37W, Sky Lake could use even less). With a better thermal-design it's an enormous step up in performance. With the new stepped-batteries they are using in the 12" Macbook they could give the battery an upgrade too.
That being said the same thing could happen for the 15/16" Pro. TDP could go down for the CPU and with the enormous advantage that nVidia has regarding their Maxwell architecture I hope they will put in at least a 950M or better due to the smaller TPD of the CPU.
I'm currently rocking a 2011 15" 6750M and miss the GPU acceleration in some apps (quite curious how LR6 performs on my aged machine). Even though the 750M isn't slow compared to my current card I'd love to see a fast 950M+ card (preferably a 960 or 970M like you mentioned, even though that is too optimistic).
Nice reply, and no worries - a gin and tonic numbed the rage down to a dull roar, and then a second... what was I writing about...?
I read the Anandtech post and also concur with your not-so-brief assessment, with one caveat - I was getting so-much-improved performance with my Boot Camp partitions I couldn't figure out where the bottleneck on my Mac was. I don't have huge graphics demands, Excel 2011 was/is 32-bit so I left my calculations to Excel 2010/2013 (64-bit, and sometimes I live in Excel), and I don't game - but my Boot Camp Windows partition was beating the pants off my two PCs (I learned how to make AutoCAD - while using and processing SHAPE files - and GIS apps scream, so I know how to configure a PC...) - while my two rMBPs were using either a 650M or a 750M. The only platform "hole" was in the Mac's graphics software IMHO, until 10.10.3 hit the interwebs...
I wrote some pretty scathing emails to Apple and met with two of Apple's Geniuses, the latter of which said that they were "Graphics Geniuses" but couldn't answer any of my questions as to why I can drive two 4k monitors from my Boot Camp partition but not from my Mac installation (10.10.1/2). So, I gave up. But, somebody might have gotten one of my Nastygrams?
I wrote about my surprise at being able to drive two displays with my rMBP, let alone at 4k/60Hz... both over DisplayPort!
Before 10.10.3, I attempted to try running the two P2715Q displays via my two DP ports and, just like everybody else out there with a similar Mac, one display would work and the second would go dark, not even recognized by my Mac. I could drive one at 60Hz via DP and a second via HDMI at low-res @ 60Hz or high-res @30Hz (including 4k), or by daisy-chaining the two displays I could mirror them at 60Hz up to and including 4k, so I know the DGPU could drive the two displays - which kind of ticked me off a bit.
I described my error in plugging in my two displays - I built a standing desk, bought a couple of display arms and had cables everywhere. I had already installed 10.10.3. As I was tidying up my new desk and workspace (while my GF was out playing with friends), I plugged the second display's mDP-DP cable into my rMBP and my TB array into my Mini Server, turned on the UPS and fired everything up just to make sure every thing worked. I had a "WTH" moment when I didn't see my Mini's Desktop but saw both displays on and my array doing its thing, and then noticed my rMBP's utilities in the second display's Menu Bar and then I figured out what was going on.
I have two Dell P2715Q displays connected to my late-2013 rMBP (16GB/1TB/750M/10.10.3) via the two mDP/TB ports with the mDP-DP (DP 1.2) cables that shipped with the displays, and one of the two displays connected via a mDP-mDP (DP 1.1a) cable to my Mini Server - one of my displays is connect to two Macs, and both displays are on Herman Miller Flo arms. I had planned to connect one of the displays to a PC I have stowed in a cabinet, but haven't done that yet.
Daisy-chaining the two displays under 10.10.3 hasn't changed - at least for my rMBP.
I do have a couple of mDP-mDP cables that are certified DP 1.2 and I can tell the difference in response time over the DP 1.1a cables and TB cables (also DP 1.1a, by design) I own - it's pretty significant. I had to give those cables to one of my employees so I'll be ordering a couple from Amazon soon and swapping one out for the one connected to my Mini (but I don't know which version of DP the Mini puts out...).
As to the "lag", I have a hunch/workaround that might cure that for others but I'm not ready to dish yet. I've been able to get GUI/app/system "lag" and "no lag" on the same Mac for pretty much the same account content (apps, email, etc., etc., etc.). I've managed to get even my Mini's interface moving pretty quickly even with its 5400 RPM drives. Even with my newer SSD-equipped Macs I'd get the "lag" but no longer. First, I want to make sure I'm right before I put something out there and get flamed - I had an IT guy who was going to help me with this but I had to let him go a couple of weeks ago. So, no lag for me - even at 4k!
Cheers!
I am a professional tech writer, and, I too am impressed by the post and it's content!
First of all, wonderful post.
As much as I would love a 970M, I doubt we will even see anything past a 960M. The 970M is an 81W part, so unless Apple wants to start shipping a 150W+ power supply this won't ever happen. The 965M (significantly slower than the 970M) is a 65W part, so that won't happen either. The 750M and 650M have around 45W TDP and even then we still have power draw based throttling.
I believe they can put in a 960M, because its an overclocked 950M and has a 40W TDP. However, with a 47W or similar processor we will still end up running into roadblocks with the 85W power supply. Sort of disappointing with how great the 970M is, but I guess we're all used to that being in the Apple camp.
Thank you. I'm not a professional tech writer unfortunately. Did write a blog 6 years ago but no one really read it.
I've improved significantly since then, but haven't really gone back into it. The tech opine industry's far too saturated, and there's too much competition (Barriers to entry are very low). Impossible to launch something big without an existing audience (The Verge (No longer good) was only possible because of the prior existing connections gained at Engadget.).I've written some extra stuff on the possibility of a redesigned Mini/4K Cinema Display/Backlit Wireless keyboard/Force Touch trackpad for WWDC 2015 in the Mac Mini forum at MacRumours if you're interested.
Windows performance better than OS X performance: Gaming on Windows has traditionally been, and still is better than gaming on OS X. Mainly drivers. Valve (Creator of the Steam gaming platform/ecosystem) has worked with Apple on that front, but Apple hasn't really followed up on it. Outdated graphics support for OpenGL. And due to the 'flip-flopping', nVidia and AMD hasn't really bothered with graphics drivers optimisation (In addition, Apple is solely in charge of drivers, rather than downloading the toolkit from nVidia/AMD directly).
It definitely sounds like a graphics drivers problem on Apple's part. I don't really blame them though: they've forced themselves into yearly updates for 3 OSes (OS X, iOS and Watch OS) along with other software (iWork for Mac, iWork for iOS, iWork for iCloud, Logic Pro X, Final Cut Pro X), so graphics drivers is probably the least of their concern (I suspect the Mac Pro drivers for the AMD Firepro should be decent.).
Interface/UX lag: Initially back in 2012, with the release the rMBP 15", the UX problem was due to the lack of graphics capability of the integrated Intel cards. It's improved since then, but people have still complained about it.
I suspect it's software.
Problem should be fixed with OS X 10.12 (WWDC 2015), since it's the first OS X to be Retina-only. It's also rumoured to be a maintenance/stability update (as is iOS 9) like OS X Snow Leopard, so it should be good on this front.
Thank you.
Yep. It's definitely possible (Razer Blade 14" essentially copied the rMBP exterior design and the interior configuration, albeit with higher cooling capacity (More internal pipes), but as you said, highly unlikely.
It's always useful being hopeful in the tech sector. I myself was pleasantly surprised when they put i7 processors in the MBPs back in 2010/11(?), because it showed that they were being to be serious on that front, and not lag behind with i3 or i5s.
They've not abandoned Prosumers yet (New Mac Pro. iMac 5K. Logic Pro X. Final Cut Pro X. Aperture gone temporarily, may reappear in Aperture X.) so that's good.
As said in the original distinction, I think there is a real possibility of Apple emphasising the 'Pro' part of the MBP (With a price increase, naturally) by putting in proper parts. Including a proper graphics card would reinforce this.
I've seen some interesting thoughts on this forum, and there is a real possibility that they might reintroduce the 17". After all, Apple's all about configuration now. They've got the cash(flow) to do it (Multiple colours: Space grey, gold, silver. Multiple sizes: Big, bigger, biggest.).
Here's how they might do it:
MacBook: 12". 11" form factor with a 13"-esque screen. Thin. Ultra-light. Ultra-portable. Good battery life.
MacBook Pro: 14". rMBP 13" form factor with a 15"-esque screen. Thin. Lighter than the 2010-era rMBPs (Should weigh roughly the same as a MBA). Decent performance. Option of discrete graphics cards on 'ultimate' tier.
MacBook Pro (Might be called MacBook Pro X, or MacBook X): 16". rMBP 15" form factor with a 17"-esque screen. Thin. Lighter than the 2010-era rMBPs. More portable than the rMBP 15" 2010-era. Very, very good battery life (MacBook 12" 'layering' inside the big surface area of the laptop). Very, very good performance. Skylake. Option of very good discrete graphics cards (nVidia 970M), with the requisite cooling required for such performance.
Apple hired Anand Shimpi, founder and former lead editor at AnandTech (https://www.macrumors.com/2014/08/31/apple-hires-anand-lal-shimpi/). He's more of a hardware/tech guy, so I suspect he's in charge of redeveloping the Mac lineup.
The 750M was not underpowered when it launched 2 years ago; it was the state of the art for 40-50 watt mobile graphics. Yes, there was the 765M and the 770M and the 780M, which were MUCH, MUCH faster, but that came at a serious price: MUCH, MUCH higher TDPs. The reason that they were not put into the rMBP is that they used too much power and produced too much heat.
Razer puts a 970M into a laptop that is thicker but otherwise smaller than the rMBP; this is done at the expense of increased noise, very high temperatures, and less space for the battery due to the size of the cooling system. Apple, on the other hands, likes things that are quiet and that have long batteries, so Apple is almost certainly not going to stray further than the 50 watt mark when it comes to graphics.
And just because better things exist, doesn't mean that the 750M is "horrendous". Is it very outdated compared to current models of similar wattage? Yes. Is it still perfectly adequate for many things? Yes.
The first camp definitely exists, but I'm not so sure of the second camp. I've not seen anybody claiming that rMBPs will have AMD graphics. Yes, the iMacs and Mac Pros have them, but in terms of efficiency per watt, AMD is so laughably far behind in mobile graphics that Apple probably won't even consider it. I personally hope that they'd put a GTX 950M into both 15'' models, but unfortunately that is unlikely to happen.
In conclusion, with Maxwell Nvidia has scored such a crushing victory over both AMD and Intel that Apple should really be looking at stopping the retreat of dGPUs from their products. It is almost certain that the Broadwell MBPs will ship with the dGPU, but after that I'm not sure whether Apple will appeal to power users or to the design and portability-oriented users.
However, hoping that Apple will put high-end mobile graphics with TDPs of 60-100 watts into a laptop is entirely unrealistic.
Also, as a side note, Apple's obsession with CPUs and neglect of GPUs is seriously bad prioritising - very few tasks, programs or workflows is bottlenecked by CPU performance these days; unless you're a professional video editor, animator, photographer or so on, a mobile quad-core i7 or a desktop quad-core i5 is not going to be the limiting factor. GPU performance is far more often the limiting factor, and it's where the most progress i is being made.
Oh my god, please, Apple. Been looking at upgrading my 2011 17". But I doubt they'd bring it back considering the low sales of the last 17".
Interesting post there. Trouble I have is that the current Nvidia line up means the 950M is only available in a GTX variant, and I'm not sure if Apple have ever used a GTX Nvidia GPU? The 940M is the next one down that isn't a GTX model.
Hold off. The dGPU model on the 15 inch in both Canada and US Stores is 2-3 weeks wait for shipping.
Same here in the UK but all the other models are still showing 1 to 2 business days.
There is nothing special about a GTX GPU, except for branding. The 940M has about equal performance to the 750M, which would really make the upgrade pointless (except for lower heat, but when has Apple cared about that?). If they put in a card with a similar TDP, then they won't have to redesign the cooling system.
Hoping for more than a GTX 950M is unrealistic, because the higher cards have TDPs that are unsuitable for the computer and once again would require a cooling system redesign.
If they redesign the MacBook Pro then they could change the cooling, but I don't expect anything more then the 950GTX which is what I expect them to use as they seem to like the X50 models from Nvidia. Also so far as I know the GTX brand is the top end model with more features and power.
With regards going AMD over Nvidia it seems to me there's a clear pattern to that decision: Apple went AMD when they needed a seriously custom part. The Mac Pro uses those very non-standard dGPU cards while the iMac 5k has that bespoke display connector to get around DP 1.2 limitations. I wonder if AMD were simply more approachable / easier to work with when it came to the bespoke work?
I would say so, look at the games console market, with the new gen consoles both Microsoft and Sony turned to AMD, from what I read Nvidia weren't interested enough! And that's one huge market to turn down.
So I would say your right.
I never said anything about being wedge shaped. They'll just drop ports they feel they no longer want/need. USB Type-C is far more versatile than Type-A, so that goes away completely. HDMI is rather bulky as well, consider that gone too. Thunderbolt is already getting thinner in v3, and both USB Type-C and TB 3 do 100W bi-directional, so MagSafe isn't *needed* anymore.
By removing ports, they can make the motherboard smaller, and stuff more battery inside, especially with Apple's terrace battery design like in the new MacBook. They want to fill every nook and cranny possible while still balancing for weight and target battery life.
So you want then to remake the MacBook Air but with a Retina screen and the 'Pro' badge on it then.
What's with this obsession for people on here to want the MacBook Pro to be an exact copy of the MacBook and Air? Buy one of those if you don't want any ports and are obsessed with thinness. Plenty if people would rather have the Pro model as a Pro model complete with ports. And if you make the machine smaller and thinner you will also lose power as they won't be able to get the same spec components in it, or the newer equivalents as they won't be able to cool it, again it will be a photocopy of an Air and MacBook.
Not really. It's just an evolution of the MacBook Pro line, like from Unibody -> Retina styling. Each iteration will get thinner and lighter but hopefully still have more battery life.
The Air is known for it's taper, the MacBook Pro will unlikely ever have that because it robs it of precious battery life space. I'm merely saying that fewer ports means a smaller motherboard, and a smaller motherboard means more space for battery (or packed or compactly), so the system can get thinner.
Regardless, the transistor substrate for the display is the real power drain here. They need to move onto updated technologies.
In fact, i very much appreciate broadwell being put in the same chassis designed for ivy bridge/haswell. Same case, less heat!
If they do redesign the macbook pro for skylake (which would be thinner somehow) i will be glad i purchased the broadwell one. So far its been great with thermals, spending much more time with the fan completely off, as it is now even after the very heavy document editing i've been doing in diff. apps.
We will see.