The MacBooks had never been cheap but the prices were reasonable in my eyes. Now you have to pay such a premium for a middle class GPU, a 256Gigs SSD (still the same default size as in the 2012 rMBP), DDR3 Memory and a CPU from over a year ago. Don't get me wrong, the hardware is not that bad at all but the price they added for that TouchBar is not reasonable.
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.
AMD Details Radeon Pro Graphics in New 15-inch MacBook Pro Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Funny, I work at a Sports Entertainment company you've definitely heard of. Macs everywhere in the content creation areas. Never once have I heard anyone complaining about processing power/GPU's/CPU's. These professionals work and their tools already work, new machines are upgrades in performance any way you slice it. The "real work" still gets done.
I honestly think the elitist "work" attitude some people use here is beyond comprehension.
Okay...AutoCAD recommends MBP 10,1 (that's the 2012/13 retina) or later with 4GB RAM or higher for the Mac 2016 version. Looks like the 2016 MBP has got you covered pretty easily.
My guess is that Apple hates making over powerful machines because they last too long. But if you're willing to pay for a 15" quad core then that will get you a long(er) life.
I'm not so sure about that... He spends much of his time going around the country giving the same basic "fireside chat" as seen here:
Yeah...this is my biggest frustration. I work at a tiny devshop where most of our revenue comes from iOS apps and it kills me that I don't have any other options when buying a work machine.
Sure those GPUs are up to date and they will work fine for most things but the price is wrong for DDR3 memory and a mid-range GPU.
Apple will tell you that's how they priced the laptop so low. If they went with DDR4, they would have started at $4000.
That's not all you're getting when you buy it. You have the improved color gamut display, significantly large haptic trackpad, the OLED touch bar, touch ID sensor, and the T1 secure enclave chip. Apple has said they spent considerably more R&D time on this one as well, so there's that.
Fair enough. There was also zero innovation in their 2013-2015 models that charged a high price for consistently outdated tech. So there's that too. The dollars kept rolling in.
MacBook Pros? I think not. Of course work gets done with macs and as an employee if it takes a few minutes to get render something its not a big deal. I've been responsible as CTO for probably the same infrastructure you are talking about (that is live recording and editing HD video), in fact, I'll bet I know exactly who you are talking about as it is a really small industry and our supplier, for both Apple and Sony HD video products was the largest in the country, was very talkative about the sports industry. But we had off line rendering servers that ran full tilt and taxed Apple's products to the max. In fact, most of the time final rendering was queued and ran overnight. Now none of the final rendering is done on Apple products for a reason. Sure Apple products are still sometimes used for workstations, but most video users are moving on for a reason. That reason is that the hardware is too limited. BTW, we were recording and subsequently editing DVCPro HD format at about 7GB per min 10 hours per day, 6 days per week. That is about 26 TB per week of new content and editing took 4 to 6 weeks.
People don't complain when it does no good, they just get on with their job. So based on my experience you should look a little closer if you really want to know.
When I used SolidWorks two years ago, I used it on a Core 2 Duo + 4GB RAM + Radeon HD5670. It was smooth as butter on that setup. Granted, I only drew up relatively simple parts, not as complicated as a modern car engine...
I am disappointed that there isn't an option to get a screen size of 3360 x 2100.
I currently have a Early 2011 MacBook Pro with what was then a high-resolution option (1680 x 1050). Replacing every pixel on that screen with a 2 x 2 Retina matrix would result in 3360 x 2100 and would provide that much more useable desktop space, albeit with scaled down UI elements.
To illustrate this I screen-shared a 2014 Retina MacBook Pro on mine. Because mine does not have a Retina screen, screen sharing sends only one pixel per 2 x 2 subcell. Here is a screenshot:
Now some of you may say, Wait, there is a 1680 x 1050 scaled resolution. I would imagine, however, that any non-integral scaling will incur a GPU performance penalty, which I definitely want to deal with.
I guess, I’ll have to wait that much longer. Maybe by then the GPU will be upgraded (it doesn’t matter to me nearly as much as to most of you guys in this thread), and there will be a 32 GB RAM option.
3360 x 2100 isn’t even 4k, yet.
[doublepost=1477666548][/doublepost]P.S.: Tying into the post right before my previous post—I, too, have SolidWorks as my most demanding application. My assemblies have hundreds of parts, however.
I currently have a Early 2011 MacBook Pro with what was then a high-resolution option (1680 x 1050). Replacing every pixel on that screen with a 2 x 2 Retina matrix would result in 3360 x 2100 and would provide that much more useable desktop space, albeit with scaled down UI elements.
To illustrate this I screen-shared a 2014 Retina MacBook Pro on mine. Because mine does not have a Retina screen, screen sharing sends only one pixel per 2 x 2 subcell. Here is a screenshot:
Now some of you may say, Wait, there is a 1680 x 1050 scaled resolution. I would imagine, however, that any non-integral scaling will incur a GPU performance penalty, which I definitely want to deal with.
I guess, I’ll have to wait that much longer. Maybe by then the GPU will be upgraded (it doesn’t matter to me nearly as much as to most of you guys in this thread), and there will be a 32 GB RAM option.
3360 x 2100 isn’t even 4k, yet.
[doublepost=1477666548][/doublepost]P.S.: Tying into the post right before my previous post—I, too, have SolidWorks as my most demanding application. My assemblies have hundreds of parts, however.
Do you find that your SolidWorks with that many polygons renders satisfactorily on your 2011 MBP ?
You mean this one?
[doublepost=1477667172][/doublepost]Hey! What happened?
The link was https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Diamond_Plate.jpg .
It was supposed to have been showing in the post as an image. Well, the link should do it for you, too.
[doublepost=1477667286][/doublepost]
I haven’t had much recent experience running SolidWorks on an adequately decked-out PC workstation. I therefore do not really know, what you or other people might think using my setup.
Nonetheless, I get my work done.
No I meant this one...You mean this one?
[doublepost=1477667172][/doublepost]Hey! What happened?
The link was https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Diamond_Plate.jpg .
Attachments
While a higher render resolution is slower the scaling itself is free on todays GPUs.
I don't buy this as a legitimate excuse to not use DDR4. This is laptop that is at the upper most price range. Other laptops $1000 cheaper use DDR4. It just can't be support/supply. As for the latency, why are we limiting this to the same speed? You can buy 16GB of 3000 Mhz laptop DDR4 on Newegg for just about the same price as the more widely available 2400/2133 speeds (and if I can buy it on newegg you think Apple, of all things, could get some too). Maybe its an extra $20, but for a computer that's probably going to be selling for about $3000 in most cases... so what? The benefits of Skylake plus super fast RAM have been shown to be significant. 2133 DDR3 is needlessly hamstringing this computer.
I'm not buying a MBP until we see at least 3000 DDR4 in it, or I can just put my own RAM in it again. Lots of other high end laptops are also shipping with 2133, but it is DDR4 and its still user serviceable. I don't want to be stuck on 2133 DDR3 for the next 4 years....
you can edit 4k video without any problem in Final Cut Pro with a 12 inch macbook ...
I remember there were sanctioned Apple clones from Umax, Power Computing, Daystar and Motorola. Apple didn't extend the licenses to cover Mac OS 8 I believe it was. I don't remember the exact reason, but I've heard that they were taking away too much business from Apple. Also, look at how many different hardware configurations they'd have to support. It would be hard as hell to support, but I agree, it would be useful. Besides, most of Apple's income comes from iOS devices and non-Mac areas it looks like, so I'm sure Apple could afford to lose some Mac business.
[doublepost=1477668554][/doublepost]
I fear that if/when Apple does ship 3000 DDR4, the rest of the computer industry will be on a much more advanced architecture.