32GB RAM MacBook Pro release - when?

[john123]

And there are professionals that need 128GB of RAM. There are professionals that need SLI NVIDIA Quadro video cards. There are those that need 18 cores. What is the point exactly?

This whole my pro needs = everyones pro needs; therefore, these MacBook Pros are not pro! need to stop. Doesn't have the right hardware for your needs? Do not buy it! That simple.

I thought "the point" was obvious, but I'll dumb it down for you. There is a significant segment of people that needs more memory. There's an even larger segment of people who would benefit from it. We are talking about technology that's available today from other manufacturers, albeit with one compromise. The somewhat silly comparisons you made are not things one can buy in a laptop due to technical considerations.

Moreover, we are talking about technology that will be available soon even without that compromise. Yet it remains to be seen whether Apple, which has a history of not offering top of the line functionality, will even choose to adopt it.

Lastly, as you seem confused by "the point," the purpose of this thread is for people to discuss the issue. It's a pretty natural topic.

So, to borrow your wording, don't like reading about what people want? Don't read the thread! That simple.

 

[Ethosik]

There are lots of professionals working for Apple: programmers, illustrators, engineers, big data analysts, scientists and etc. If the 16GB RAM on MBP is crippling their ability to perform in their work, Apple will sure produce a more powerful laptop that is better suited for professionals.

Sure, 32GB RAM is much desirable, so is full-day battery life, so is its thin and light profile for maximum portability. 16GB is probably the best compromise at the moment from the collective feedback of their in-house professionals + market surveys.

Why would those Apple employees need to use a laptop if they are at the office? Their iMac can have 64GB of RAM on it. Why would they limit themselves to a poor laptop i7 compared to a top end core i7 in an iMac. Or 6-8 cores on the Mac Pro? Why would they limit themselves to a mobile GPU instead of using the new 580 8GB on the iMac? Or dual D700s on the Mac Pro?
[doublepost=1506689923][/doublepost]

I thought "the point" was obvious, but I'll dumb it down for you. There is a significant segment of people that needs more memory. There's an even larger segment of people who would benefit from it. We are talking about technology that's available today from other manufacturers, albeit with one compromise. The somewhat silly comparisons you made are not things one can buy in a laptop due to technical considerations.

Moreover, we are talking about technology that will be available soon even without that compromise. Yet it remains to be seen whether Apple, which has a history of not offering top of the line functionality, will even choose to adopt it.

Lastly, as you seem confused by "the point," the purpose of this thread is for people to discuss the issue. It's a pretty natural topic.

So, to borrow your wording, don't like reading about what people want? Don't read the thread! That simple.

There is a significant segment of people that need to SLI graphics cards. Why don't these laptops offer that and be extremely thick? There is a significant segment of people that DO need 128 GB of RAM. These laptops suck for not having that too.

If you need more than 16GB of RAM, there are other options available to you. I do not know when this trend started that a laptop must compete with a desktop, but that is never a good thing. My Macbook Pro beats any of our desktops at work, but those are cheapo Dell workstation around $400. But compared to my custom built windows PC? No laptop should attempt to compete with that. Laptops are meant for light work on the go, not full workflow on the go. There are some professionals that can get by with performing their full workflow on the go. I cannot and it is much more common where people cannot. I need SLI GPUs. I need 6-cores. I need 128GB of RAM. I use my laptop for "prepping" my work on the go and make it ready for my desktop to perform the real work. There is no way I can accomplish all of my tasks with a laptop.

I would certainly prefer keeping the Macbook Pros the way they are now with their long battery life. I am often times without a power source so the long battery life is better than anything I can find on the Dell side.
[doublepost=1506690645][/doublepost]

GPU doesn't suit all problems and data scientist is not synonymous with big data. Given a specific dataset, I could simply do a linear or logistic regression, or I could do a complex hierarchical Bayesian model for example. The CPU and RAM resources needed by the different models are quite different - even if operating on the same dataset. Certain models slow down when you run out of RAM, certain models crash when you run out of RAM. Some of this is down to user choice of software and model, some of it isn't. One particular piece of third party software I had to use (had to because it is the standard tool for the particular problem) would silently crash when you hit the physical RAM limit, and you would not know for days perhaps that this had happened (ahem....... ). The support service denied the issue, so my only solution was to move to a machine with bigger RAM.

Whether some people like it or not, extra RAM does solve/make easier certain problems for some people. Apple should give professional users the option to choose between RAM vs battery. Like their competitors do. Nobody is gonna force anyone to buy 32GB if they only want 16GB, so there is no need to get super defensive because others want more RAM.

Oh ....and please fix the keyboard.

Um, yes they will. Do you honestly expect Apple to work on two chassis, two motherboard, two ENTIRELY separate configurations for the Macbook Pro? One with a LPDDR connection and one with DDR4? Their laptop lineup is already big enough. We do not need more choices. And if we force DDR4 even on those that only need 8GB of RAM, they will still suffer.

 

[Olganech]

Setup a VPN and VPN back into the Mac Pro.

 

[Msivyparrot]

The point is Apple should innovate, push the technological boundary, I would in a heartbeat buy a Mac laptop that allowed post purchase upgrading, here Apple is very expensive and not everyone can replace every 18 months.

What I would love is something external that is something like a GPU/RAM box thing, that has up to 128 or 256GB RAM, that you can add or remove, so when you don't need a "boost" you don't use it, and when you need it, plug in....

Look this would be innovative, this would be new, useful, it would extend the working life of Macs, not just laptops, iMacs, mac pros around the world, maybe even as a breakout box, I just need more than 8, and way way more than 16GB..

 

[_Kiki_]

[doublepost=1506673112][/doublepost]
You clearly are not a producing musician with that comment.

I'm not pretending to be, but I see you are specialist in every field

 

[john123]

There is a significant segment of people that need to SLI graphics cards. Why don't these laptops offer that and be extremely thick? There is a significant segment of people that DO need 128 GB of RAM. These laptops suck for not having that too.

If you need more than 16GB of RAM, there are other options available to you. I do not know when this trend started that a laptop must compete with a desktop, but that is never a good thing. My Macbook Pro beats any of our desktops at work, but those are cheapo Dell workstation around $400. But compared to my custom built windows PC? No laptop should attempt to compete with that. Laptops are meant for light work on the go, not full workflow on the go.

The first part of what you said is a straw man argument, as I already pointed out. You failed to address that.

Your last two sentences here are an opinion, and your second sentence in particular is an opinion based on an artificial construct. Not sure why you've decided to declare what laptops are "meant" and "not meant" for, but suffice it to say that an awful lot of people disagree with your opinion.

But this is all beside the point. As I previously explained, we aren't talking about some massive technological feat here. We are talking about a feature that can happen now, that will happen soon with an energy efficient footprint, and that will help a lot of people who do a lot of different kinds of work. When that time comes, if you decide you don't want or need more RAM, don't buy it. It's pretty simple.

 

[Hippocrates]

Why would those Apple employees need to use a laptop if they are at the office? Their iMac can have 64GB of RAM on it. Why would they limit themselves to a poor laptop i7 compared to a top end core i7 in an iMac. Or 6-8 cores on the Mac Pro? Why would they limit themselves to a mobile GPU instead of using the new 580 8GB on the iMac? Or dual D700s on the Mac Pro?
[doublepost=1506689923][/doublepost]

I don’t think you get the point at all. You are making assumptions all over (and putting words in my mouth) without the slightest attempt to understand what the whole argument is about... or did you quote me by mistake? Lol

 

[Ethosik]

I don’t think you get the point at all. You are making assumptions all over (and putting words in my mouth) without the slightest attempt to understand what the whole argument is about... or did you quote me by mistake? Lol

Maybe I am a bit confused by your statement. You said there are a lot of professionals working for Apple. If they are physically at the Apple campus, why would they be using a laptop instead of an appropriate iMac or Mac Pro? Therefore, they wouldn’t be limited to 16GB since they will use a desktop instead.

 

[EugW]

Maybe I am a bit confused by your statement. You said there are a lot of professionals working for Apple. If they are physically at the Apple campus, why would they be using a laptop instead of an appropriate iMac or Mac Pro? Therefore, they wouldn’t be limited to 16GB since they will use a desktop instead.

Regardless of who they work for, there are a LOT of pros that value portability, yet need lots of RAM. If there weren't, the MBP market wouldn't be so significant. I can guarantee you that the day Apple releases a 32 GB model, there will be a lot of people purchasing them. These days, 16 GB RAM is a decent amount of RAM, but it's not exactly a huge amount.

Desktops are great, but for many to have both a laptop and desktop is both inconvenient and expensive. For many people it makes a heluvalot more sense to buy a single laptop and an external monitor or something like that.

I don't fit into that category though. I have two High Sierra iMacs and three High Sierra Mac laptops right now. However, I will note that although one of them is just my kitchen computer, I just upgraded that to 8 GB because I was noticing slowdowns doing mainly just email and surfing on that thing. Five years ago if you had told me I'd put 8 GB into a kitchen recipe computer that gets dusted with flour and splattered with pie filling, I'd say you were crazy.

 

[Hippocrates]

Maybe I am a bit confused by your statement. You said there are a lot of professionals working for Apple. If they are physically at the Apple campus, why would they be using a laptop instead of an appropriate iMac or Mac Pro? Therefore, they wouldn’t be limited to 16GB since they will use a desktop instead.

MacBook Pro by itself is a compromise between portability and performance. It works well for professionals in the domain it is meant for.... and within that scope of work, I am sure Apple took into considerations the feedback from its own in-house professionals who require no less computing power than other professionals.

I would also love to have a laptop that is as powerful as supercomputer clusters, that can turn into a auto-driving magic carpet, photosynthesises for its own power, and maybe to cook my dinner for me. When you need additional computing power/memory that MacBook Pro cannot provide for, look elsewhere... but that still doesn't take away what this little laptop can do for you on other aspects of your work (whether Apple has fully optimised that in current design is a different debate). Being able to work around constraints is what makes professionals professional.

 

[Msivyparrot]

Apple made a huge mistake when someone decided that macbook pro and macbook air needed to be the same thing, and basically they are the same thing...

The macbook pro needs to be "professional", that is bigger everything, screen, trackpad, hard drive, RAM, more ports, varied ports, mag safe compulsory, and the macbook air, a simple ipad with attached keyboard!!!

If you work in a professional creative environment, you will more than likely work around tech genius, who can fix or update...Why not have extra RAM slots, extra slots for solid state drives, more ports..What is the harm? There is none...

You buy a lower specced device and as time and budget allows, you buy more RAM, hard drives, etc..this extends the lofe of the laptop in places where laptops are more expensive..The USA, everything is cheap!! Not so much here...

The macbook pro should have user change parts, parts you can replace, upgrade, as you need to..Yes not everyone needs 16GB, but as I understand, 64GB will the most RAM Intel will cater for on mobile devices...

I don't see in my lifetime Apple going anywhere near 32GB let alone 64GB in terms of RAM..I would pay for someone to take my mac apart and install more than 16...

 

[Falhófnir]

Not to nitpick, but I'm not sure how you can say that "very few users right now need 32GB RAM in a mobile machine." Given that Pros are (ostensibly) marketed to would-be pros, and a lot of those people do very memory-intensive work (including but not limited to virtualization, data science, and graphics and animation), it's probably a much larger chunk of people than you think. That is exacerbated by the fact that for many people, the laptop is the one and only work machine, aside from what they do with cloud computing.

Surely if you’re getting into stuff that intensive then a desktop is more suitable? You’ll quickly run into cpu and gpu constraints on a laptop too... a quad core 45W mobile cpu still won’t be as powerful as it’s 60W desktop equivalent, let alone the high core count chips in the iMac pro. GPUs in the MBP pretty well cap where the iMac starts...

As for when 32gb might become available in a mbp, basically shortly after suitable Coffee Lake chips which support lpddr4 become available from intel.

 

[Msivyparrot]

I dont have the space for an imac, and for me 32GB or more of RAM in a 17inch laptop with 1 or 2 TB of fast SSD would be on the shopping list..The point is, there is nothing different from the air to the pro..they are the same thing...Kind of like going to Porsche and driving away in a VW...The porsche looks sexy, but it has VW engine...what is the point???

Are we just paying for 3 letters???? Hang on...air=3 letters, pro=3 letters....um...cant be that...what is better on the pro??? Same crappy internals...basically a VW beetle in a pretty frock???? No..cant be that, the pro looks crappy compared to the air...what is pro about the pro???? Touchbar?? Oh that is just a stupid accessory...does not work!!

So what is pro about the pro?? Mine is a hunk of junk...

 

[_Kiki_]

Surely if you’re getting into stuff that intensive then a desktop is more suitable? You’ll quickly run into cpu and gpu constraints on a laptop too... a quad core 45W mobile cpu still won’t be as powerful as it’s 60W desktop equivalent, let alone the high core count chips in the iMac pro. GPUs in the MBP pretty well cap where the iMac starts...

As for when 32gb might become available in a mbp, basically shortly after suitable Coffee Lake chips which support lpddr4 become available from intel.

last mobile CPU with 57W TDP was Intel Core i7-4940MX (replaceable like a desktop CPU), Intel crippled mobile CPUs and there is no more extreme series

there is a also possibility to buy a PC laptop (more like desktop replacement) with desktop CPU

mobile GPUs currently are strong, but only if chose choose PC

 

[Msivyparrot]

You have missed the point entirely..Apple=McDonalds.. They are the same, for the most part...sell [insert swearword] product...No matter if you order a fillet o fish or a big mac...you only get ketchup with the french fries...Really....I hate not having a choice...This is Apple, this is mikkey d's...they are the same, only 1 choice...At least KFC has a choice...

The other point there is no innovation at Apple..Apple are not forcing Intel/AMD, anyone else to innovate..I would not give chip makers a moments rest if I was running Apple..Tim is too busy getting awards and selling stock to care, and Jony has not had an original thought ever!

 

[whodean]

Um, because I do? Right now as I switch to my Mac Pro, Activity Monitor is saying: Memory Used 16.64 GB. So yeah I need more than 16GB when <puffery>
[doublepost=1505480993][/doublepost]

Here's where many folks fail in the critical thinking Dept.

Do you realize how fast the SSD is?

Even using swap you aren't going to run into much of a real world performance hit.

 

[Msivyparrot]

The Mac Pro..that old trash can??? That is so old and slow..You perchance run an Apple museum?

 

[john123]

Surely if you’re getting into stuff that intensive then a desktop is more suitable? You’ll quickly run into cpu and gpu constraints on a laptop too... a quad core 45W mobile cpu still won’t be as powerful as it’s 60W desktop equivalent, let alone the high core count chips in the iMac pro. GPUs in the MBP pretty well cap where the iMac starts...

As for when 32gb might become available in a mbp, basically shortly after suitable Coffee Lake chips which support lpddr4 become available from intel.

As previously explained, this is a straw man argument.

Lots of people prefer to have a mobile computer than one that ties them down to a location.

Of course a desktop will be more powerful. But that does not mean there isn't a real, practical need--or at least utility--for more powerful laptops. Just because a desktop is faster at the work isn't an argument against using laptops.

Also, lots of people do work that doesn't involve the GPU.

I don't get AT ALL why people keep arguing against the idea of more memory in a laptop. Honestly, it's insane. No one will be forced to buy 32GB when the option is made available—so whether your concern is extra cost or battery life, either way you'll have the choice. By definition, the option of more RAM will enable more people to do more work on their laptops. How is that a bad thing? Arguing against it is just being contrarian for the same of being contrarian.
[doublepost=1506879160][/doublepost]

Here's where many folks fail in the critical thinking Dept.

Do you realize how fast the SSD is?

Even using swap you aren't going to run into much of a real world performance hit.

Before you insult others' "critical thinking," you might want to do some research yourself.

While SSDs are a massive leap forward from traditional HDDs, they aren't on par with RAM. Not even remotely close.

 

[Falhófnir]

As previously explained, this is a straw man argument.

Lots of people prefer to have a mobile computer than one that ties them down to a location.

Of course a desktop will be more powerful. But that does not mean there isn't a real, practical need--or at least utility--for more powerful laptops. Just because a desktop is faster at the work isn't an argument against using laptops.

Also, lots of people do work that doesn't involve the GPU.

I don't get AT ALL why people keep arguing against the idea of more memory in a laptop. Honestly, it's insane. No one will be forced to buy 32GB when the option is made available—so whether your concern is extra cost or battery life, either way you'll have the choice. By definition, the option of more RAM will enable more people to do more work on their laptops. How is that a bad thing? Arguing against it is just being contrarian for the same of being contrarian.

Not at all, it’s just about what apple is likely to do, and how practical creating a powerful enough proper desktop level mobile workstation would be. Some gaming laptops shoehorn desktop components in, are well over an inch thick, weigh a ton and still throttle horribly because cooling can’t keep up properly - they aren’t that mobile beyond maybe shifting to a different desk or table around the house. If you’re doing the sort of intensive work you mentioned, I’d suggest you’re probably mainly going to be working out of a lab, studio or office, so there’s little benefit to having a hulking laptop over a desktop. As Apple would likely say the user experience wouldn’t be great. So we’re limited to mobile components, which allow for more reasonable form factors at the cost of power.

I certainly wasn’t arguing against a 32gb option, I was just noting that for many of the purposes you suggested, there would likely be other bottlenecks that would be as much a constraint or more of a constraint than lack of ram. For the very slim sector of professional work who could benefit from 32gb of ram but a lower powered chip and gpu would be ok, sure it’d make sense, but is it a big enough sector to make Apple money? The fact they haven’t made a machine to fill the niche yet suggests it’s not big enough a market that they’re losing sleep over not selling into it.

 

[john123]

For the very slim sector of professional work who could benefit from 32gb of ram but a lower powered chip and gpu would be ok, sure it’d make sense, but is it a big enough sector to make Apple money? The fact they haven’t made a machine to fill the niche yet suggests it’s not big enough a market that they’re losing sleep over not selling into it.

It's not so slim as you might think. Lots of people use extensive virtualization, and not just in the cloud. VMs are hogs. There are other use cases too.

But more importantly, your conclusion assumes lack of demand is why we don't have a 32GB option. That's not it. The issue is that Intel is behind on the Canonlake with LPDDR 4 RAM, and until that comes, there's no power efficient option. Coffee Lake sticks us at 16GB. Once Cannonlake comes, 32GB will almost certainly be a BTO option.

 

[Msivyparrot]

It's not so slim as you might think. Lots of people use extensive virtualization, and not just in the cloud. VMs are hogs. There are other use cases too.

But more importantly, your conclusion assumes lack of demand is why we don't have a 32GB option. That's not it. The issue is that Intel is behind on the Canonlake with LPDDR 4 RAM, and until that comes, there's no power efficient option. Coffee Lake sticks us at 16GB. Once Cannonlake comes, 32GB will almost certainly be a BTO option.

Hi John123....

What we do not know is how much force Apple is applying to Intel and AMD to design chipsets that are more than 16GB RAM ready.. Why for example did Apple have user install RAM then removed this feature???

BTO is damn expensive and frankly pointless..It generates so much electronic trash, screens, keyboards that are 100% functional have to be thrown away when the owner finds the RAM either inefficient or stops working, and this does happen from time to time.

By not having user post purchase install options, it prevents RAM designers from innovation, this is Apple refusing to innovate, and why would Apple refuse to innovate..I wish I knew...

The fact is, Apple is not innovative anymore..phones, laptops, iMacs, all the same, boring design from a decade ago..

 

[Naaaaak]

Not only 32 GB of RAM, but 32 GB of ECC RAM.

 

[darksithpro]

Not only 32 GB of RAM, but 32 GB of ECC RAM.

I don't think the current Core i5/i7 desktop and mobile chips support ECC. Apple would also have to put in a Xeon, which would actually make it a professional laptop.

 

[Msivyparrot]

grr...Hello...is this on..??? Hello... the point is Apple should not be using off the shelf garbage..but new stuff..Bring something new like they did with firewire, some old mouldy device like the ifone, and the iPod...Not retreaded fong kong garbage we love to hate...

Why not new..Something not igarbage but maybe X-something...Something sexy...lakes and coffee is old and boring...Intel is just not cutting it with the igarbage range...

 

[Falhófnir]

It's not so slim as you might think. Lots of people use extensive virtualization, and not just in the cloud. VMs are hogs. There are other use cases too.

But more importantly, your conclusion assumes lack of demand is why we don't have a 32GB option. That's not it. The issue is that Intel is behind on the Canonlake with LPDDR 4 RAM, and until that comes, there's no power efficient option. Coffee Lake sticks us at 16GB. Once Cannonlake comes, 32GB will almost certainly be a BTO option.

But you’re leaving out that it’s then a subsection of that market who actually need to be mobile with their tasks and are willing to pay a significant premium over an iMac for that... not to mention by the time you slot in all the components to make a truly powerful workstation, as I said, you’ve already made a great slab of a machine that’s limited in portability.

No, lack of potential profit/ return on investment for Apple... I’d say if there was a significant market for a 32gb MacBook Pro, Apple would have made it work even if the trade off was lower battery life... even if it almost halved battery life to 6h, that’s still around industry average for a H series laptop with a dgpu, and as you say it would just be an expensive add on for those who want it. Apple clearly didn’t see a significant number of people who’d be willing to make the trade off so they didn’t include it as an option. If they did think they could milk a huge amount of profit from those who did need 32gb in a mobile workstation, they’d have gone ahead - it’s the same reasoning behind why they ditched the 17” it’s an expensive niche use case that takes significant sums to engineer for probably a much lower return than they get with the 13 or 15 inch models.