My comment was not meant to refute yours, but to further clarify the likely reason a larger than expected performance gap was observed.
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.
16-Inch MacBook Pro Returns to Pre-2016 Arrow Key Layout, Sticks With 720p Webcam and 802.11ac Wi-Fi
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure what setup you got, maybe early hardware? Maybe it’s a GarageBand software issue that’s fixed or eventually will be? I’m not getting lag. I’m OCD too, I’d notice. Point is, Can’t beat the convenience, its the future, it’ll get perfected, and soon. You’re doing detailed audio editing on your phone? Like professionally? Strange.
Last edited:
We're in a thread about the new 16", yes? The context of that reply was your comment implying that the headphone jack was not important to be talking about on the 16." I don't create music for a living, but for those that do on Macs, the audio jack appears to be pretty important.
Apple Innovation and design has become so pathetic that they now illustrate the return of a Physical Escape key as a feature and the magic keyboard (which is going back to an older design).
Mac now costs way more and offer much less than comparable PCs.
They insist with delivering all soldering components so they can keep charging obscene RAM and SSD upgrade pricing. The only reason is GREED. That is the only reason Apple is still soldering the components so they can rip off customer big time! It is not security or reliability. We are simply tired of Apple overcharging over 100 - 200%
Upgrading 16GB RAM to 32 +$400.00
Upgrading SSD 512 to 1TB +$200.00
(I can get a top of the line external 2TB SSD for $270 and internals are actually cheaper and this are retail pricings).
The best for the brightest? Look at the graphic cards, lack of ports among other things.
I would say it is more a mid overpriced machine for the average user.
Mac now costs way more and offer much less than comparable PCs.
They insist with delivering all soldering components so they can keep charging obscene RAM and SSD upgrade pricing. The only reason is GREED. That is the only reason Apple is still soldering the components so they can rip off customer big time! It is not security or reliability. We are simply tired of Apple overcharging over 100 - 200%
Upgrading 16GB RAM to 32 +$400.00
Upgrading SSD 512 to 1TB +$200.00
(I can get a top of the line external 2TB SSD for $270 and internals are actually cheaper and this are retail pricings).
The best for the brightest? Look at the graphic cards, lack of ports among other things.
I would say it is more a mid overpriced machine for the average user.
Not that I’m trying to talk you into buying the new 16” MacBook Pro, but I don’t think your arguments hold much water, if any at all.
User upgradable components on laptops are becoming rarer and rarer these days because they add cost, reduce reliability, and require more space in the chassis.
Comparing these features to car tires isn’t a fair comparison because tires are a wear item or a consumable that must be replaced over time. Memory and storage space will still work the same as they do when you bought the system even 5 years later. Continuing the car theme, if we need more storage space in a car, we don’t bolt on an extension to the cabin, we purchase a different, larger automobile. It’s the same with the engine. If we purchase a car with a 200 hp engine and two years later decide we want more power, we don’t replace the engine with a larger one, we replace the car.
Finally, you have many third-party options for mag-safe, so that’s no excuse not to purchase any of the current MacBooks either.
I know that change is hard and many of us long for the good ol’ days when we could replace/upgrade everything, but we’ve moved on for many different reasons both good and bad, but we have moved on and there’s no reason to deny ourselves the latest and greatest because of our attachment to history.
Upgradable components do not make a computer less reliable. THey actually are more expensive to repair and generate more trash.
The only reason Apple is doing it is greed! It is not security or reliability. We are simply tired of Apple overcharging over 100 - 200%
Upgrading 16GB RAM to 32 +$400.00
Upgrading SSD 512 to 1TB +$200.00
(I can get a top of the line external 2TB SSD for $270 and internals are actually cheaper and this are retail pricings).
Sorry but Apple Innovation and design has become so pathetic that they now illustrate the return of a Physical Escape key as a feature and the magic keyboard (which is going back to an older design).
The best for the brightest? Look at the graphic cards, lack of ports among other things. If this is the best Apple can offer after 3 years, oof repeated design Macbook failures, then that is quite bad.
I would say it is more a mid overpriced machine for the average user.
Sure, that's why I have 802.11ax controller in my X250, and my T580 has 64GB RAM (that I purchased for all of GBP250 aftermarket) and the ax controller too! And both have both an internal and external battery and all are FRUs. Oh, and both have spill resistant keyboards that do drain-through if stuff is pilled on them (replacing a keyboard on a lenovo compared to my macbook pro 17, having done both, is a piece of cake). Even the new T{45}90 offer soldered-on RAM *plus* a socket for an additional upgrade! The short of it is, the new MBP 16 is crap for the price compared to competition.
I think you're off-base here. Engineering is about trade-offs, and Apple has simply made a different set of tradeoffs. Apple wants to make the sleekest devices, and one of the ways to do that is to make everything non-upgradeable. Upgradeable components add weight and space, and they've chosen (for the last 7+ years) to sacrifice upgradeability. Perhaps in the future that will change, although I'm not personally holding my breath.
Aren't these prices comparable to other OEMs? Someone said that Dell charged the same for RAM and even more for (slower) SSD storage.
The 16" MBP has the absolute fastest mobile GPU that AMD offers, and GPU performance will exceed many other devices in the same class laptop.
[automerge]1573776073[/automerge]
I would agree with you when it comes to the 15" (with its ancient Polaris-based Radeon 555 in the base model). This is AMD's latest Navi architecture that supersedes Vega, and it comes by default, whereas Vega was an upgrade on the 15".
Benchmarks have yet to be released, but it's far superior to any Intel integrated GPU, and plenty of laptops come with just the integrated graphics! It supposedly compares well to an Nvidia 1060, which I don't think anyone would consider "garbage entry-level" in the ultraportable market. If you're shopping for giant gaming laptops then you might have a point, but not in the ultraportable segment.
Last edited:
Check Apple's spec and Lenovo's spec, MBP16 weighs fraction more than T580, T580 is 4mm thicker. I've put my own NVMe stick and 64GB RAM into it, and it has both internal and external batteries, both are user serviceable. I think you've been drinking Apple-juice too long and not checking out the competition...
Erm, of course, but then again they let you config the cheapest option and buy aftermarket parts...
It's true I haven't seriously cross-shopped Windows laptops in years. I took a quick look at the T580 specs, and I'm sure they are good machines for many users, but they aren't really comparable to the 16" MBP. They use low-power "U" processors (low clock speed and max of 4 cores) and no discrete GPU.
That said, I spent a few more minutes on the Lenovo website and did come across the P71 Gen 2, which is much more comparable to the 16" MBP in terms of specs, and it's still at a similar weight. (I didn't check the size). Pretty impressive, based on that very quick look.
Yes, it would be nice if the RAM were user-upgradeable (it would also be nice if they still offered USB-A and HDMI, which I use routinely when I lecture:HDMI to connect directly the projector, USB-A to connect my Logitech PowerPoint controller dongle).
Having said that, it's still the same old story: As I'm sure you already know, with some exceptions, you don't buy a Mac purely for the hardware. Instead, you have to consider the overall value of the total package it offers, which is the hardware plus the software (and also the support). And for many, using MacOS instead of Windows provides significant value.
Last edited:
The comparison that would be interesting would be to compare the 5500M to the fastest NVIDIA discrete mobile GPU that has about the same TDP. I recall reading (not sure if it's accurate) that the 5500M has a TPD of ~80W. If so, a possible comparison candidate might be the Max-Q version of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080, which comes in an 80W TDP variant
Last edited:
I would guess that about 99% of real world use cases for MBP16 would be web browsing/email/typewriter something that my X250 is more than capable of... 🤣 My T580 has an MX150 and that works rather well (oh and in Win 10, you can actually choose what apps use what GPU by application, which is great!)... Quite frankly, I don't see the pathological need for 8 cores (other than "mine's bigger than yours" factor) in a laptop, I use P51 for serious work, and the Xeon chip there is never maxed out on a bunch of VMs or compiling...
If you want to compare like for like, P73 twice as thick, 1.5kg heavier, but, a whole bunch of IO ports, Xeon chip, 2 NVMe + 2.5HDD slots and 128GB user upgrade RAM, plus 802.11ax (the only reason I know is because I was waiting for Apple to announce MBP16 to choose between that and the P73 for my next "big thing"). And using SD cards for large read-intensive data is a great capability.
[automerge]1573818229[/automerge]
If that's true, then quite frankly, I don't see how Apple's design (hardly any vent holes) can cope with a TDP of 125W just from the CPU+GPU alone in a sustained manner, the little animation they have is still blowing hot air into an obsticle (the screen)... I'm guessing there will be a fair bit of thermal downclocking under continuous use?
[automerge]1573818609[/automerge]
Not sure what "value" you speak of, other than what people have been brainwashed into believing by Apple's marketing dept---one needs the right tool for the job---quite frankly, the use case you described (presentations) is more than comforably fulfilled by an X240 which has all the ports you need and you can pick it up from eBay for about GBP200 and if you really want to splash out, you can even get a touch-screen one 🤣
Last edited:
I do agree with you but there definitely is space/packaging savings but soldering everything on board. SODIMMs and M.2 SSD’s definitely take up more space when they are replaceable. I would certainly prefer user upgradable components - especially the battery which is really a consumable item.
But they work a lot better. The old layout was terrible. Far too easy to hit the wrong up/down one when the left/right ones are full size. The half height up/downs back again fixes that.
[automerge]1573836489[/automerge]
Umm... so... what... Tim shouldn't ever release new Macs because it'll make yours outdated? Riiiiiiiight.
Skyblve wtf
[automerge]1573836792[/automerge]
Umm... so... what... Tim shouldn't ever release new Macs because it'll make yours outdated? Riiiiiiiight.
Skyblve wtf
OMG seriously? This again?
ð usb-c magsafe - Google Search
www.google.com
A multitude of options, some of which are significantly better than Apple's implementation. And when you don't need plugged-in power (y'know it's a battery powered computer, right?) you have an extra port that you wouldn't have otherwise (without compromising something else).
This is BETTER.
Stop whining. And you're welcome.
Last edited:
I hear you. I like the Touch Bar personally, but I also think Apple was right to bring back the escape key. And the rest of this gets this much closer to what we've been wanting all along.
I think you've gotten yourself a bit confused here. I was acknowledging that, on a pure hardware basis, the current MBP's can sometimes fall short for me, and using the lack of HDIM and USB-A ports when giving lectures as an example. However, I then went on to say that, when making a purchase decision, you need to consider the value of the package as a whole, which means both the hardware and the software. I.e., ultimately it doesn't matter how fast your CPU or GPU are, what matters is how rapidly and easily the computer enables you to get your work done. And that includes not just the hardware, but the OS as well. Many of us find we are much more productive within a MacOS environemnt than a Windows environment, and that is what I mean by value.
Back in the early 2000's, when Windows was much more dominant, other than creatives, there was one other large professional group that strongly favored the Mac: scientists, especially physical scientists. We didn't buy Macs for their looks, we bought them because they enabled us to get our work done much more efficiently.
Your diss notwithstanding, I hardly this it's all of us that have been brainwashed. Perhaps it's you that has been brainwashed into thinking that only hardware specs matter. They're important, to be sure, but they're not the only thing.
No, you said "you have to consider the overall value of the total package it offers" so I am asking what is THE VALUE that you speak of? Here, you further say "... group that strongly favored the Mac: scientists, especially physical scientists. We didn't buy Macs for their looks, we bought them because they enabled us to get our work done much more efficiently..." Are you seriously saying that there is value in buying inferior (or at least way more expensive all things but the OS being equal) hardware for hardware-bound tasks??? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Nope, I'm saying most tasks aren't purely hardware-bound, and if the total task time (human time + computer time) is significantly less with computer A because of computer A's OS, then that OS is providing significant value. I dont' know how I can make it any clearer than that.
As a broad generalization, when I'm doing development work, the task is human-bound. After I've completed the development work and am doing production work (i.e., when I' m running jobs on a computuer cluster), the task is hardware bound. Thus since I'm more efficient doing development work on a Mac, it makes sense there to have a Mac. Our cluster, by constrast, is Linux-based.
Also, I think you are overstating the difference in price between Apple and non-Apple hardware. To get the same SSD speeds*, screen quality from another manufacturer (*for a while, no other laptop mfr matched Apple's SSD speeds; not sure if this is still the case) , you have to pay quite a bit. And no other manfacture meets Apple's build quality and customer support: The best independent data on this is from the Consumer Reports Annual Survey of its members, and Apple has consistently ranked no. 1 in reliability and support in the laptop category; yes, Apple's laptops have had the keyboard issue but, on average, everyone else's laptop reliability is even worse.
Last edited:
You can make it clear by quantifying the difference and not describing some magic unicorn in a fluffy cloud... Like someone else said above, you too, sound like you've not evaluated Windows or any of the *nixes since Windows ME/Vista!
The thing is you've given nothing by way of evidence other than "I say so!," hence the ridiculing of your post.
Really, Apple charges +GBP720 for 64GB RAM factory upgrade, and that's the only way to get it due to it being soldered on, retail 32GB 2666V SoDIMMs from Samsung are currenly GBP 118 each, so at most that would be a +GBP240 upgrade, nearly GBP500 difference! You're saying that "overstating the difference in price," I suppose when you're spending research money on a shiny new gadget that's one thing...
Your assumption is incorrect: At one of my jobs I'm (unfortunately) required to use Windows 7 and 10 (depending on which workstation I'm using).
I could quantify it for you, puttting it in terms of time saved = dollars saved, using an average hourly wage. But what's the point since, as you've just effectively admitted, you're not here to have a serious discussion, you're here to troll.
Last edited:
You’re contradicting yourself... But I’ll come back to that in a minute...
Two things here:
1. macOS’s value:
He doesn’t have to quantify it. He’s not stating absolutes. He’s stating that for SOME people the OS has value and produces more productivity. He doesn’t have to quantify that for you to be able to agree that it should be true - for SOME people. Unless you have some evidence or even just a profound personal unwavering belief that it’s not true for ANYONE...?
in which case if he’s wrong then why is all this a conversation in the first place? Anyone here complaining about Apple’s HARDWARE who cares nothing for the OS has countless other choices. The only reason we’re here arguing about this (excluding the trolls) is because some people want different or simply cheaper hardware options that include Apple’s OS. Why? The only logical reason is because somewhere along the way to those people Apple’s OS has value and/or more productivity than the alternatives. So he doesn’t have to quantify it to be clearer. If he’s wrong, the entire discussion is moot, and go buy a Windows computer instead.
So on that basis, to anyone engaged in this conversation either Apple’s OS has value, or they’re just a troll.
2. Why it has value:
The two biggest reasons macOS has value are Apple’s hardware choices for it to run on, and expensive and extensive R&D.
MacOS makes much more efficient use of hardware than Windows does. Meaning to achieve the same productivity you actually need less physical specs with macOS than with Windows.
So comparing pricing for spec for spec Windows laptops to Mac laptops doesn’t compare what counts: Productivity. For the same productivity on Windows you need higher hardware specs than on Mac.
To start proving that all you have to do is look at Activity Monitor on Mac and the equivalent on Windows (I forget what it’s called right now) to see how much RAM, CPU and storage macOS uses vs what Windows uses before you open any apps.
And that’s before you look at all the polls and research done on human productivity and tech support cost of Mac vs Windows (start here: https://www.appleworld.today/blog/2...ter-productivity-employee-satisfaction-at-ibm).
So Apple’s OS has more value (to anyone with any agenda in this conversation other than trolling, otherwise why are they here?).
And all that value comes at a price: MacOS is the result of extensive and expensive R&D. Apple spends more money on R&D than anyone else in this industry. And a lot of that is what produces a superior OS.
A large part of what that is about is Apple’s target market, which so many people on this forum don’t understand.
Apple (since Steve came back in 1997) has NEVER been interested in the mass market. They’re interested in selling premium products to the select few people that want something special (which requires a lot of expensive R&D).
That’s a different market to Windows, although they got it right enough that that market has grown a lot, but it’s still a minority in the grand scheme. And that’s ok.
When they were trying to compete in the same market as Windows they nearly went bankrupt. And since they left that market (1997 with the return of Steve) they’ve become the most successful company in the world. What more evidence do you need?
So now back to Apple’s hardware choices and macOS’s value, in that context.
MacOS is better because of all the tight integration. And part of that is the strictly limited hardware it runs on.
Your RAM price argument: There is much more to the price of RAM than the physical sticks or chips.
First there’s installation cost. In the case of socketed RAM that’s marginal of course, but it’s something. Even if you do it yourself, it’s your time. And if your time doesn’t have a significant financial value then what do you need this machine for that a MBA can’t do? Spend your time doing the work that you’re buying this for instead and you’ll make more than you save. Aside from which, these people are not Apple’s target market and in Apple’s customer base these people are the tiniest fraction. Apple has no desire or need to cater to them. To most in Apple’s target market that installation cost counts.
Second, the installation cost when it’s soldered is obviously significantly more than when it’s socketed. So they better have good reasons for soldering it With that extra cost right? Well they do. Despite what ignorant people here want to argue, having it soldered DOES have value - to those in Apple’s target market.
For one, again, limiting the choice of physical hardware is part of what makes macOS better. So sure you could choose to go buy top of the line Samsung RAM if it’s socketed, but then some also have the choice to go buy cheap crap RAM and Apple doesn’t want to, nor have to, support that. So the only RAM they want to worry about supporting is their specific limited choices, so they lock out the other choices and soldering it is one way to do that.
But then also, it’s been flogged ad nauseum some of the other value in soldering it on: fewer points of failure and it takes up less space so more space for battery, cooling, etc. Agree or don’t with whether that value is worth anything to you or not but it’s worth something to some people - particularly those in Apple’s target market, which isn’t you. And if you’ll argue why can’t they just make the computer bigger then I’ll argue that if they’re going to make it bigger then I (and most of Apple’s target) want space for better cooling, more processing, more storage, more RAM, more battery life, etc, long before I want upgradeable RAM sockets. Seems they’ve delivered that with this new machine. In spades.
So... agree with whether all those points suit you or not. That’s your freedom. But that’s Apple’s strategy and for what they are trying to achieve and who they are trying to achieve it for - including me - its the best strategy for all the reasons above. Socketing the RAM decreases the value to me and most of Apple’s target market enough that Apple (rightly) have no interest in, and there is no benefit in, catering to the relative minority that want it socketed. And that comes at a price, and that’s why it’s more expensive than standard Samsung RAM sticks.
If you don’t like that that’s ok. There are plenty of other computer choices out there you can choose. Except, oh wait, you want macOS. Why? Because it’s better. And it’s better because of all those choices you don’t like.
TL;DR:
MacOS is better, otherwise why are we even debating Apple's hardware decisions, unless those against are just trolling?
It's better partly BECAUSE of the expensive R&D that they have to charge for somewhere, and because of the hardware decisions: tight integration, limited hardware choices, and higher price.
So if you want the results of all that (Apple's OS) then that’s what you’re paying for. If Apple's OS has no value then Apple's hardware choices are moot and you're free to buy any of the countless Windows based choices.
Those are your choices. Your contradiction is that you can’t have it both ways. you get what you pay for.
unless you can point us to the unicorn store?
Last edited:
You are conflating two separate points here: reliability and cost to repair.
Yes, cost to repair soldered RAM is more expensive than swapping out removable chips.
But soldering it on IS more reliable than socketing it - fewer points of failure, among other reasons.
And if soldering it results in fewer enough failures and therefore fewer enough repairs then the overall repair cost of all units over time is less. I’m not saying it is fewer enough, but IF it is, then that’s just simple math.
I’d suggest Apple has done the research and determined it’s worth it to them. Here’s why:
If something fails under warranty the repair cost is on them.
Warranty is one year or three years depending on whether you buy AppleCare. AppleCare is now AppleCare+ which provides much more than it used to (protection against accidental damage for one). It doesn’t cost significantly more than it used to and in some cases it costs less (MBP AppleCare used to cost $499 at one point and it’s now $269 for 13” or $379 for 15”).
If Apple is providing better warranty for less cost than in the past then (a) they’re getting less warranty income to cover those repairs, and (b) more people are buying it. So both ways repair costs are more on Apple than us than before.
So if all this “OMG soldered RAM is more expensive to repair” is true then Apple is wearing it. Do you think they’d be continuing that 4+ years down the track (this started in 2105 with the MacBook) if its costing them more?
They screwed up with the keyboard. They’re admitting it, wearing it (extending the warranty), and backpedaling on it so they don't have to keep wearing it forever (new MBP has scissor keyboard again). If they screwed up with repair cost of this soldered RAM (and SSD) choice why aren’t they backpedaling on that too?
So something tells me this “soldered RAM is more reliable and less prone to failure, enough that it offsets the more expensive repair for the more rare failures” argument has some weight.
If you have proof otherwise then please feel free to present it.