Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
But what does the $3K starting price deliver? 256GB all soldered SSD, 8GB soldered RAM, no ports and of course the headphone jack removed. All combined with a nasty Touchbar and a crippled keyboard.

Like my 2018 MBP it won't pay off. In a useable state with 1TB SSD and 32GB RAM, Core i9 it was about 4500€ including tax. But I have to say that it simply isn't worth the price.

The above is built entirely on presuppositions. First, if this is a pure replacement for the 15”, then it reasons that Apple will have a 16GB/256GB/4GB GPU base configuration w/ 4 USB-C ports, the TouchBar, the new scissors mechanism and a headphone jack at $2399 or a bit higher.

A “useable state” also presupposes that everyone wants or needs the same configuration as you, which is not true. I have a 2016 15” 16GB/256GB/2GB RX450 which works great for everything that I throw at it daily.

As for your Core i9/32GB/1TB SSD - if it isn’t worth the price, then why did you buy it and not move to a Windows-based laptop? Certainly, you have a variety of choice to choose from that would have been less expensive and met your requirements.

Your post reads like sour grapes more than anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Detnator
Apple gains nothing by opening up RAM and SSDs to third parties. They aren't a clone vendor. People can either buy with their maxed out options or accept that it won't ever be that way. BTO doesn't mean BTO with options later on.
And, in a nutshell, you have outlined a way for Apple to alienate half of potential buyers. Phil Schiller, are you listening?
 
And, in a nutshell, you have outlined a way for Apple to alienate half of potential buyers. Phil Schiller, are you listening?
Apple wants consistency. If people swapped their components, they could put the slowest ones and claim the Macbook is very slow. Nonetheless, the SSD on the Macbooks are one of the fastest, maybe even faster than Samsung ones. NOt sure about RAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zdigital2015
And, in a nutshell, you have outlined a way for Apple to alienate half of potential buyers. Phil Schiller, are you listening?

Half? With Apple’s generally consumer-oriented focus, I believe that it is closer to 18%-22%, or around 1 in 5, which is a far cry from 5 out of 10.

Apple’s gateway drug of choice is the iPhone, not the iPad or the Mac. This is how it gains the vast majority of users now, unlike 15 years ago, when computers were the dominant force and convincing someone to switch from Windows to MacOS X was the goal. That was where the Mac mini came into play. The iPod, as popular a phenomenon as it came to be, was a single purpose device and could not begin to capture the marketshare Apple wanted in the way that the iPhone can and does. Apple ceded that point quickly as it ported iTunes over to Windows and moved from a FW400 only solution to a hybrid FW/USB solution and, ultimately, a USB-only solution.

No...the overall market doesn’t care about upgrading their DRAM or their storage. They like Apple’s products for one reason or another (ID, features, seamless integration with each other, a particular app they use on their iOS device, et al) and they decide to move beyond just an iPhone to purchasing an iPad (gateway drug of choice #2) or a Mac only if their computing needs are not met by option 2. The overall market has zero desire to tinker inside a PC, they simply want something to work day in and day out.

The mistake that so many users on this forum make is to conflate their hobby and their desires with the general user-base at large. I spent plenty of time doing front line support on Mac and Windows and the users who mucked around with their machines had a reason to do so and did so at their own risk (devs mostly, but R&D people and a few select DIYer’s who did so by necessity), but business after business and user base upon user base simply wanted the darn thing to work because they didn’t have time to mess with their computer, they needed it to get their job done.
 
I don't care if it has 800 cores, after the last MBP I bought and seeing how hot it turns up on soft-loads I am done with Apple laptops as working machines. I am not sure how it is on the PC side of things, but 90C for playing 20 year old game is not acceptable. I mean. the boiling tempreture of water is 100C.

I’m sensing a flaw in your argument.
[doublepost=1565186191][/doublepost]
I'm curios, why 16 when there is already a 15.6?

Why not go to 17 if its aim is for content creators? 17" + 1440p + OLED + 144Hz

Well, one possibility is a 15" frame with thin bezel. In that case what will happen to 15 line up?

The latest rumor is the 16 replaces the 15 in the lineup
 
Thread after thread, post upon post, too many users are projecting their wants and desires about this rumored 16" MacBook Pro and are setting themselves up for an incredible amount of frustration and disappointment if Apple actually releases this computer before the end of the year.
[doublepost=1565122167][/doublepost]

The Xeon E-Series (E-22XX Series) is 45w TDP, the same as the Core i9-9980HK.
Sorry, I had overlooked the 'M' at the end when I googled the processor name (and did a search on the Wikipedia page).
 
The key point besides price is functionality. Will it have the necessary ports, i.e., SD card, USB-A, or continue this stupid thinness craze. We want FUNCTIONALITY and not having to look for adapters. A couple of millimeters isn't a deal breaker. LACK OF FUNCTIONALITY IS!

Again with the ports. It will not have those ports. The industry just needs to catch up already.

And no, I’m not being a sheeple fan boy. I hate the old ports.

You’re talking about “FUNCTIONALITY”? Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C is the ultimate in functionality. It is/does everything.* The old ports* offer nothing technologically or functionally that USB-C/TB3 don’t offer except that the only reason to hang on to them is compatibility with other stuff that (so far) refuses to move forwards. And that’s not a good enough reason, (especially when in the meantime, in most cases - sure, not all, but most - a cable swap solves the problem anyway and a dongle still isn’t needed).

As slow as the industry is, Apple insisting on not putting old ports back will bring the rest of the world forwards faster than if Apple gives in and puts old ports back. Yes, it’s a little painful, but if Apple (and/or sometimes other companies too) didn’t do this time after time, we’d all still be using ADB, SCSI (remember terminators?), Zip/floppy drives, etc. etc. ... or punch cards... and your precious USB-A from 20 years ago wouldn’t even exist.

So pushing forwards is the only sensible option. MacOS and this mentality are a package deal. This is how Apple has always been.

I’d argue that this mentality is one of the reasons macOS is “better” than Windows. Wait... is it better? Well that’s a matter of opinion, but presumably it’s your opinion that it is, otherwise why do you care? If macOS isn’t “better” then who cares what ports Apple does or doesn’t put in their computers, when the Windows world has countless choices of all shapes, sizes, configurations, etc. and we can all just abandon Apple and get our choice of those? And that’s before we start talking about how much better Apple’s support is compared to the competition.

No. You want your ports in Apple’s laptops because you think macOS and/or Apple’s support is better (or you’re just a troll - but let’s assume the former). So you like Apple’s OS and/or support. And so you have to understand how this stuff works. One of the biggest reasons Apple’s OS and support is “better” is because Steve was obsessed with stripping out stuff and that mentality has continued on since his unfortunate passing. Apple puts limits on what they have to support (both customer support and what hardware the OS has to support).

Windows is a mess (relatively) because it has to accommodate all the permutations of every piece of hardware out there, while Apple’s laser focus on a limited range of hardware means they can spend their resources on fine tuning for that instead of accommodating everything. So this is cause and effect. It’s a package deal. If they keep supporting legacy stuff then macOS and their support won’t be “better”.

If you don’t like Apple’s mentality (the very mentality that at least partly causes Apple’s OS and support to be better) you have the choice to give up on macOS and go to Windows, into an ecosystem that supports your mentality of holding on to old stuff. You have that choice.

(Or... if you think you can do it better then you have the choice to build your own computer company and show the world how it really should be done. )

I choose pushing forwards. You might choose otherwise. Isn’t it great that we both have that choice! But if you’re going to expect the company that wants to push forwards (as one of its defining features) to stop doing that then you’re just going to be disappointed. So now you have another choice: Adjust your expectations or stay disappointed.

Sorry.

PS. Every reference to “you” above is not just you specifically. It’s everyone here who complains about the ports. Your message is just one as good as any to start from.


——

*...except SD which could arguably not be called a “port” anyway - although I don’t mean to split hairs. Perhaps there’s an argument for SD card slots but if you put that in then where do you stop? What’s so special about SD as opposed to all the other types of memory cards, and in fact anything else they could put in? What do you want SD for that absolutely can’t be done some other way? It’s slow as molasses compared to just about any other kind of modern storage. Just as much as the world needs to catch up and move on from USB-A and all the other ports, it needs to move on from SD as well, to other better alternatives (eg. wireless for starters).

Additionally, why should they make it bigger to put SD in (which can be added externally for the few people that still want to hang on to it) when if they’re going to make it bigger they could use that space for more cores, more RAM, better cooling, and other things that can’t be added externally. Sure they could make it big enough for all of the above but then the battery time halves. Ok so put a bigger battery in? Then it’s not just a bit bigger, it’s a lot bigger, and you might as well carry an iMac and portable AC power pack around. Where does it stop?

Aside from which, if you really want all the ports and you really don’t care if it’s bigger, then get one of these: https://www.hypershop.com/collectio...-13-and-15-2016-2017-2018?variant=41421336460 or any of the other slightly differently configured options (more choice) from the same company... or heck, even two of them, one on each side, and leave it/them permanently attached. There you have your bigger MBP with all the ports you could possibly want and the net result is still lighter and no bigger than the older MBPs with all those ports built in. (What’s the big issue with adapters anyway?)

And that’s the point. With USB-C/TB3 we have choices that we didn’t have before. No matter which way you bend it, that is better than before, and better than if they revert back.

So no. Apple, please don’t put an SD slot in it, or any of the old ports. Instead, put more cores, more RAM, and even more 40Gb/s ports in it. Real pros need that stuff a lot more than we need SD or HDMI or USB-A or any of the old, slow stuff.

I can only hope that this thing isn’t just the same maxed out MBP as today with just a slightly bigger screen. I really hope they’re putting more performance in it too.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention, wireless headphones on a laptop are pointless. It's not like you listen to your laptop's audio while it's in your backpack.

It's also a tiny hole that doesn't affect design.
I do stand up and move around when listening to laptop audio. I like wireless for that reason. Audio jack reappearance is fine with me, though.
 
People who are truly bothered by the keyboard are likely waiting anyway.
True, but even though I like the butterfly keyboard (reliability aside), I'd be tempted to wait if the new one is comparable to Magic keyboard with numpad.
 
And an optional touchbar (aka no touchbar). And a scissor keyboard. And MagSafe. And HDMI. And SD Card reader. And a better trackpad with Pencil support. And a better battery. And no throttling. And a matte screen.

Good golly, there's quite a bit I'd pay extra for.

And with all that, it’ll either have 4 hour battery life or be as big as an iMac.
[doublepost=1565189687][/doublepost]
macOS catalina scaling is different...it will makes sense for you...if not...you will be the only one who will never gonna dance again
Guilty feet have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
Should've you known better than to cheat a friend
And waste the chance that you've been given
So you will never gonna dance again
The way I danced with you

Lol. Never thought I’d see a WHAM! quote in a Mac forum. Love it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fokmik
Orrrr they could have one for you that starts at 1999, and have one for me that uses it.

Under no circumstances should they "get rid of" the touch bar.

I know some people love it so for those people, they shouldn’t abandon it. But myself... I hate the Touch Bar. I need those physical keys.

So it should be optional. Or... potentially they could include function keys AND Touch Bar. If this thing’s chassis is a little larger than the 15” then there’d be room for that. Even the current 15” chassis with a slight rearrangement could fit both.

But... Not sure if that meets with Apple’s mentality. I guess we’ll see.
 
Given they have a whole bunch of folks saying "Shut up and take my money" (see this thread for example) they know they can do that and get away with it. Any company would love to have blind fanboys like that... it'd be like McDs offering a new "Pro Fries" that gives you 5 more french fries for $2 extra.

Really? If you take a look - I think consumers are (rightfully) pushing back on Apple pricing... Didn’t Apple just have to pay Samsung $600 Million for under-ordering iPhone screens? Aren’t there lots of pre-2016 Mac book pro owners sitting on older laptops, refusing to pay Apple premiums on sub-optimal laptops?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ener Ji
No, those are not important issues. The main issues are, in order of importance:

1 - fix keyboard
2 - remove touchbar (or make it haptic so merely brushing it doesn’t cause it to trigger, and add real escape key)
3 - improve thermals
4 - price

The only real reason for this is to get lower priced 3rd party upgrades.

I haven't wanted or needed to open up my computer since 2012 and yes I am a 'pro' who used to build their own computers.
If Apple went down this route and changed their designs in such a way that it

1. allowed ram and ssd upgrades
2. fully utilised CPU via better cooling

then I will be buying a PC workstation with an Nvidia GPU in it. All other benefits would have gone out the window - ie a super portable near workstation laptop, which the MBP currently is.

You buy desktops for power and laptops for portability. Trying to have both in a laptop either means overheating / lack of portability or some other compromise.

Hence why you buy Macbook Air for portability and Macbook Pro for Power(And Customization). this is technically how you distinguish the Macbook Air from the Macbook Pro(especially the 15/16inch laptops).
 
Half? With Apple’s generally consumer-oriented focus, I believe that it is closer to 18%-22%, or around 1 in 5, which is a far cry from 5 out of 10.

Apple’s gateway drug of choice is the iPhone, not the iPad or the Mac. This is how it gains the vast majority of users now, unlike 15 years ago, when computers were the dominant force and convincing someone to switch from Windows to MacOS X was the goal. That was where the Mac mini came into play. The iPod, as popular a phenomenon as it came to be, was a single purpose device and could not begin to capture the marketshare Apple wanted in the way that the iPhone can and does. Apple ceded that point quickly as it ported iTunes over to Windows and moved from a FW400 only solution to a hybrid FW/USB solution and, ultimately, a USB-only solution.

No...the overall market doesn’t care about upgrading their DRAM or their storage. They like Apple’s products for one reason or another (ID, features, seamless integration with each other, a particular app they use on their iOS device, et al) and they decide to move beyond just an iPhone to purchasing an iPad (gateway drug of choice #2) or a Mac only if their computing needs are not met by option 2. The overall market has zero desire to tinker inside a PC, they simply want something to work day in and day out.

The mistake that so many users on this forum make is to conflate their hobby and their desires with the general user-base at large. I spent plenty of time doing front line support on Mac and Windows and the users who mucked around with their machines had a reason to do so and did so at their own risk (devs mostly, but R&D people and a few select DIYer’s who did so by necessity), but business after business and user base upon user base simply wanted the darn thing to work because they didn’t have time to mess with their computer, they needed it to get their job done.

Every Mac user I know upgraded the hard drive on their ~2010 MacBooks. Today, nobody. Don’t you think if it was still easy, people would do it?

I think the ever changing pentalobe screws and custom ssd interface better portray’s Apple’s desire to thwart those efforts.
 
Every Mac user I know upgraded the hard drive on their ~2010 MacBooks. Today, nobody. Don’t you think if it was still easy, people would do it?

I think the ever changing pentalobe screws and custom ssd interface better portray’s Apple’s desire to thwart those efforts.

Easy or hard, 1 out of 5 people is going to do it...not 5 out of 10, which is the OP's argument. Your experience is your experience, but not necessarily indicative of the reality.

Pentalobe is meant to dissuade casual poking around by those with more curiosity than skill. The custom SSD interface doesn't seem to have stopped the aftermarket from creating "solutions", despite the fact that they never seem to quite match Apple's in pure speed or functionality. Apple soldering SSDs might scream greed to the barebones crowd, but integrating their preferred solution (T2 + bare NAND chips) is still Apple's discretion as they engineer a whole, not a sum of parts the way PC OEMs have for decades.

The bottom line is that, like it or not, DIY upgrading is not 50% of computer users. At least, not anymore. I did tech support in various companies and for friends, acquaintances, etc and the interest and/or skill simply wasn't there. People have work to do and if that work isn't building and upgrading computers, then those people simply want their tool of choice to work, or print, save files correctly or recover a backup. They give ZERO ****s what is inside because they just want to get the job done.

Given that the iMac, Mac mini and Mac Pro have some user upgradeability, Apple does at least acknowledge that there are users out there that want to do some upgrades down the road, but those are desktops which are not likely to be transported every day, every week, every month or even every year. Perhaps, the new 16" MacBook Pro will allow DRAM upgrades by reintroducing SO-DIMM slots, but I doubt it. Apple sells the vast majority of Macs in a portable configuration and they want them to come out of the box ready to go, usable and reliable as possible for users. Portable computers take the most abuse and soldering components is one way to insure that things aren't moving all over the place. The thinner form factors that users want and demand now precludes user upgradeability. If the 16" is a new chassis, it might have concessions to Pro users...but that is pure speculation on anyone's part at this time. The fact remains is that the general computing public doesn't have a burning desire to open up their computer, period. They never did and they never will.
[doublepost=1565195502][/doublepost]
Sorry, I had overlooked the 'M' at the end when I googled the processor name (and did a search on the Wikipedia page).

No worries...M or no M, Apple will likely never embrace Xeons on the MacBook Pro as there is zero real world benefit to doing so. At least with the iMac Pro and Mac Pro, the Xeon W-Series has a magnitude higher amount of PCIe lanes hooked directly into the CPU, which is the primary advantage Apple is looking for given the desire for full speed GPUs, high speed SSDs and flexible I/O.

If the Xeon E-Series had more than x16 PCIe lanes, then we might see Apple migrate the 16" MacBook Pro over and equip it accordingly. Unfortunately, right now, all the Xeon E does is add unnecessary costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Detnator
Every Mac user I know upgraded the hard drive on their ~2010 MacBooks. Today, nobody. Don’t you think if it was still easy, people would do it?

I think the ever changing pentalobe screws and custom ssd interface better portray’s Apple’s desire to thwart those efforts.
Ofc they did, bec in 2010 there was hdd and not ssd..and people wanted ssd
Today...if it not fails,no reason,even the space can be addressed with external hdd or ssd based on your speed and price preferences
 
yes, i think Apple missed the opportunity to do something new...i mean instead of releasing the big one but with the last gen cpu, Apple could made the first redesign with the smaller one, an 14" where we already have the new Icelake cpu 15W and 25W with LPddr4 , double the igpu performance and so on...
This should be the first redesign macbook for this fall...not the 16"

Apple is not going to jump on the Ice Lake bandwagon. There are simply too many unknowns, or at least, not enough upsides right now.

How can people in this forum forget what a cluster**k Broadwell was when Intel introduced it? Have people forgotten? Are memories that short?

I can guarantee you that Apple has not forgotten it. We never ended up with Broadwell in a 15" MacBook Pro. Yes, we got Broadwell in the 13" MBP and MBA, but it took almost a year before the iMac had them and that was only the 21.5" model, the 27" iMac jumped directly from Haswell (Devil's Canyon) to Skylake. Intel has had process issues and continues to have process issues. Once they master a process, they seem to be able to master it and iterate, but the process issues over the last three process shrinks (22nm, 14nm and 10nm) have been extremely challenging to Intel. Granted, this goes with the territory, but 14nm and 10nm have been especially grueling given Intel's continued promises and continued calendar revisions.

With all the "benefits" being touted for Ice Lake, I frankly think Apple is going to wait it out to make sure that yields improve enough to meet its internal metrics. I think it is very telling that Apple chose to introduce Coffee Lake U-series CPUs just recently with the 13" MacBook Pro refresh in both May (28w TDP) and July (15w TDP). I suspect that Apple could have simply kept their lineup the same with the lame duck nTB 13" MBP and introduced 10th Gen along with Acer, Dell, HP and Lenovo just in time for the holiday shopping season, but they didn't. Call them conservative or cheap or behind the times, whatever, but I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a very smart move on Apple's part.

I hope Ice Lake is successful and that Intel is over the hump, but I just don't have any trust in them to be honest about their issues and it seems neither does Apple.
 
I do stand up and move around when listening to laptop audio. I like wireless for that reason. Audio jack reappearance is fine with me, though.

Fair point - I guess useless is an exaggeration. My point being that I think for most people there is little benefit to wireless headphones on a laptop.

For example, I'm working on my laptop off-site right now, and have my wireless headphones plugged into the computer. They sound better that way, and now I don't have to worry about charging them later. I suppose the only benefit of having wireless headphones would be that I don't have to remove them to get a drink of water.

Personally, I prefer wired to wireless when there's no benefit to wireless. I don't want to worry about charging my keyboard and headphones when I'm always within two feet of my computer when I use them.
 
Because it's a waste of power and you wouldn't be able to see it. You already can't see individual pixels, that's the point of retina.

If they were going to do anything making it 120hz would be far more beneficial.

Once you use 144hz regularly, using any Apple devices at 60hz feels like a lagwagon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canhaz
I also miss the days when hostess Ding Dongs came wrapped in foil, contained all that evil trans-fat and tasted like hockey puck shaped sin, but the FDA has taken that away from me. Things change.

These analogies...

I can still eat something with chocolate and frosting and no transfats. I don't think many people want ding dongs anymore...

I can't get a Macbook Pro without a touchbar, and many people don't want a touchbar...

You are quite the defender of Apple practices. Is there anything Apple does that you disagree with?
 
....
With all the "benefits" being touted for Ice Lake, I frankly think Apple is going to wait it out to make sure that yields improve enough to meet its internal metrics. I think it is very telling that Apple chose to introduce Coffee Lake U-series CPUs just recently with the 13" MacBook Pro refresh in both May (28w TDP) and July (15w TDP). I suspect that Apple could have simply kept their lineup the same with the lame duck nTB 13" MBP and introduced 10th Gen along with Acer, Dell, HP and Lenovo just in time for the holiday shopping season, but they didn't. Call them conservative or cheap or behind the times, whatever, but I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a very smart move on Apple's part.
...

Apple skipped Whiskey Lake U (WL-U) also, which uses 14nm and has speculative execution bug fixes which these new Coffee Lake (CL-U) updates completely lack. That isn't indicative that process tech is the primary issue, because Apple skipped new 14nm solutions too.

The new CPUs that went into the new two-port MBP 13" model have eDRAM. The WL-U don't. Apple is being selective on many of these laptops in getting a integrated GPU that Intel often rolls out last. That is a bigger contributing factor to why Apple is on a slow boat. Intel's eDRAM is a separate chip in the multichip module so pointing finger at process tech there is a bit of leap. Perhaps a congestion problem when the eDRAM is the same process as the CPU and the wafer starts are all full. That's isn't an "Intel can't move fab tech" problem.

A bigger issue is that Apple is almost the only vendor who waits around for these eDRAM enhanced CPU packages before moving forward. Many of the other system vendors just leave room in most of their 13-15" systems for a discrete GPU and just couple it to a weaker iGPU that is available sooner. Whether being largely the lone wolf gets them behind in the roll out or Intel doesn't make them in volume because Apple isn't ready to ship, I suspect is a toss up. Apple has gone comatose on product upgrades across the whole Mac product line over last 6 years. Leaving that off primarily on Intel is misdirection. [ And if Apple dangled a buck of money in front of Intel do deliver earlier it seems unlikely they would pass that up. It is closer to Apple wants several things and then wants to pay less than almost anyone else. ]

The 'new' MacBook Air Retina has exactly the same chip that the previous one did a year ago. The MBA from 2015-2017 was largely one big hit the snooze button. That was basically being cheap. Or at least cheaper ( Apple is moving the MBA price down to better fill the entry laptop role. Trimming costs is where that system is at this point. So it isn't a candidate for Ice Lake because that isn't going to bring fatter margins in 2019 on its initial roll out )

Additionally, it also isn't so much about Apple's "internal metics" and more so about they have fewer products. So they comparatively make bigger orders. The 'internal metrics' would be more so how many they project they are going to sell. That's really isn't as import to yield to how many they will actually sell ( which technically isn't an 'internal' number.)

If Apple is actually using CL-H for the MBP 16" another blocker on one of the relatively recent refreshes getting something new is that Apple might just kneecap it for OCD reasons. Just to keep the whole line up on the sync'ed up close to the same OS/Firmware fixes and support. ( again a 'save a buck' and avoid risk move). they have done it before if something does move forward then everything else is in pause/comatose mode so not moving. But since Apple had the 'keyboard crisis' they had zero option not to move all of the Mac laptops forward. Couple that to OCD of all laptop have to be sync'd up generation wise and ta-da could see Coffee Lake across the board in 2019 ( other fixes and improvement tossed aside because 'keyboard' was bigger crisis.... and which was/is entirely not of Intel's making ).


I hope Ice Lake is successful and that Intel is over the hump, but I just don't have any trust in them to be honest about their issues and it seems neither does Apple.

Ice Lake Y is also one of those things that probably annoys Apple more in that whatever A13X ( iPad Pro SoC class ) solution they have about to roll out probably generates more than a decent amount of "but we could use our own" drama inside of Apple.

The bigger candidate for the Ice Lake Y would have been a fixed MacBook. It is likely Apple was far more interested in putting R&D funding into stuffing a iPad Pro SoC into the MacBook and investigating that as a solution than in gambling on Intel turning the corner on execution. Throw on top the keyboard drama and new enclosure for much higher selling MacBook Pro line and Apple's "fewer teams than products" approach to product development probably ran into a wall ( which is an internal problem). Apple has demonstrated relatively limited ability to walk and chew gum at the same time in the Mac space. Intel's problem have contributed a bit, but probably hasn't been the root cause issue.

If Apple can only have N laptops in flight at a time then doing a new 16" MBP could easily bump a MacBook out of the line up. ( MBA 11" and strategy shift bumps MacBook out on a previous cycle. )
 
Apple is not going to jump on the Ice Lake bandwagon. There are simply too many unknowns, or at least, not enough upsides right now.

How can people in this forum forget what a cluster**k Broadwell was when Intel introduced it? Have people forgotten? Are memories that short?

I can guarantee you that Apple has not forgotten it. We never ended up with Broadwell in a 15" MacBook Pro. Yes, we got Broadwell in the 13" MBP and MBA, but it took almost a year before the iMac had them and that was only the 21.5" model, the 27" iMac jumped directly from Haswell (Devil's Canyon) to Skylake. Intel has had process issues and continues to have process issues. Once they master a process, they seem to be able to master it and iterate, but the process issues over the last three process shrinks (22nm, 14nm and 10nm) have been extremely challenging to Intel. Granted, this goes with the territory, but 14nm and 10nm have been especially grueling given Intel's continued promises and continued calendar revisions.

With all the "benefits" being touted for Ice Lake, I frankly think Apple is going to wait it out to make sure that yields improve enough to meet its internal metrics. I think it is very telling that Apple chose to introduce Coffee Lake U-series CPUs just recently with the 13" MacBook Pro refresh in both May (28w TDP) and July (15w TDP). I suspect that Apple could have simply kept their lineup the same with the lame duck nTB 13" MBP and introduced 10th Gen along with Acer, Dell, HP and Lenovo just in time for the holiday shopping season, but they didn't. Call them conservative or cheap or behind the times, whatever, but I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a very smart move on Apple's part.

I hope Ice Lake is successful and that Intel is over the hump, but I just don't have any trust in them to be honest about their issues and it seems neither does Apple.
As far as I know, Apple has not updated the 13" high-end MBP utilizing the 28W processors. There have been couple of rumors that Apple will introduce an updated 13" MBP this Fall that will be capable of handling up to 32GB RAM. The only way that can happen is if Apple updates the MBP with Ice Lake processors. If true, my guess is, is that the high-end 28W MBP will be upgraded to Ice Lake processors and 32GB RAM capability separating it from the entry-level MBP.
 
NOTE: The figures here represent single-threaded performance in SPEC.

Spare me this test. More importantly throw ROME at that Single Threaded custom designed SoC and then show me the Multithreaded also.

If bothered to follow the link on the page i linked in you would have seen ranting on the N1's 'bad' multiprocessor/parallel performance was not where you wanted to go. I didn't link that one in because of two reasons. One, that is probably more sensitive to simulation accuracy (i.e., more likely to have bigger error bars and there is limited info there to make a judgement of the quality of the simulator) . Second, tuned for edge servers handling highly concurrent loads is a bigger gap from single user workstation parallel loads ( so more likely going to miss set expectations of how well this would do a high end Mac desktop CPU ).

Those are also just the 64 core N1. There is another reference that is 128. Which for the workloads targeted will probably going to scale. So ROME's 64 cores aren't necessarily going to 'rule the day'.

Appealing to future ROME version because the current EYPC gets beat is mostly misdirection. The original assertion was basically that ARM wasn't competitive. If you have to jump to the latest, bleeding edge (not shipping in volume) version from the AMD catalog to stay out in front ... then it is competitive. It won't "eat up" the whole server market but carving out a subset as large as what AMD has built over last 2 years is quite doable.


What's that? It sucks ass? Already know ARM sucks at the real work--database processing, AI, Machine Learning, Tensor calculations, etc. There's a reason the new Supercomputer is AMD post ROME based CPU and Post Navi GPGPUs.

Both Intel's x86 ( and future AMD) CPU got instruction set extensions to get more traction in AI/ML/Tensor. Same thing on the GPU side ( as Nvidia added Tensor subsystems ). There is nothing that is inhibiting by ARM to follow same path. In fact, Appke and Qualcomm have already done it to their implementations. ARM has added a few. There is nothing inherent in ARM basic design that is a major problem.

The amount of ML inference on iPhones is going substantially up at the moment; not down or stagnant in any way.

There is a huge difference between what an ARM basline can do and not do the APU context ( where this actually started off because moved to arm flapping about supercomputers. )

"real work database processing" .... errr I'm not sure it the point want to be doing too much smack talking about ROME there. While these are not specifically database benchmarks.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-epyc-7742-vs-intel-xeon-benchmarks,40089.html

the 2x7742 numbers aren't all that linear to the single 7742 numbers. AMD kind of fudged away their NUMA issues but that was pragmatically going to a serializing point with the single I/O chip for everybody for loads where pulling on a common pool of memory. This could be "more OS tuning required" (because just ballon squeezed the NUMA problem into a different context) , but it isn't in the earth shattering stage at the moment.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.