Do you agree with this? (Make MBP thick again)

[maflynn]

ust two things: <snip>

We are not talking about throttling definitions, you're deflecting. My Thinkpad being thicker by only 3.2 millimeters and only an i7-8850 outpaces your i9 MBP and does so running a lot cooler. You face 100c consistently (and justify that its ok because that's what it supposed to run at), where as my temps are in the 70c range and maybe in the 80c range if I really push it

Here's what I have from prime95 saturating the CPUs and running for several minutes. Max temps 76c, where as the notbookcheck article I linked too had the MBP hit 100c almost instantly.

 

[chad_has_a_mac]

At any rate, we can hope that next CPU generation will improve the efficiency to the levels where this entire mess can be simplified.

Good nuggets of information in your response, I appreciate it being well-thought and contrived. I learned a good bit, and I think areas where you speculate are entirely plausible.

I guess my point of view is one coming from my most recent device is its the first I've jumped to the 15" model. I have used 13" models in the past and worked them to death--great machines. I work on very large repositories of source code and compile/build some pretty monolithic crap (gotta love legacy software codebases). I anticipated, apparently unreasonably that there wouldn't be such a huge discrepancy in heat coming from the 13" Pro line, but I should have known with any more power is that much more heat. I still prefer to do my work on a desktop, but I like the mobility when I need it. From my perspective, it feels like a step back and I'm just not convinced that I got any more value than say if I went with a 2018 MacBook Air instead. If I'm on battery power, I won't even think about kicking off some of the 5+ minute builds as it would result in a minimum of 10% battery life loss.

All said, I can't help but find humor in the entirety of the discussion is that I think we've been saying the same thing as your last sentence about mobile processors for about the last 20 years or so lol

 

[StellarVixen]

No, because then Apple will make MBP even thinner ...and so on. It's like Ouroboros snake...

 

[Queen6]

I personally would like to see Apple do something similar to the Asus Studio S and pack a 17" size display into a 16" chassis, make it slightly thicker, and market it as MacBook Pro Workstation. Don't take away the thin MBP that so many love (just make some tweaks to it), but offer one additional model similar to iMac Pro, for the mobile crowd.

Just waiting to try a Studio S, great spec, although the display could be better with a higher res, maybe in time. Ticks a lot of boxes meanwhile Apple is letting it's sales & marketing clowns dictate the spec for the Mac, and that needs to be moderated by someone with a clue...

Tip, we don't want thin & light desktops with zero reparability/upgradability. Apple has simply become the thing it once looked to vehemently oppose, Apple is now IBM...

What a shame you sold us out, we expected so much more than feeding your excessive margins...

Q-6

 

[SDColorado]

Just waiting to try a Studio S, great spec, although the display would be better with a higher res, maybe in time. Ticks a lot of boxes meanwhile Apple is letting it's sales & marketing clowns dictate the spec for the Mac, and that needs to be moderated by someone with a clue...

Tip, we don't want thin & light desktops with zero reparability/upgradability. Apple has simply become the thing it once looked to oppose, Apple is now IBM...

What a shame you sold us out, we expected so much more...

Q-6

Man if the StudioBook S had a 4K option I would be trying to get on a pre-order list. Love everything else about it FHD panel is the only thing giving me pause.

I think the current MBP's have their target market, but I would still love to see something similar to the Asus StudioBook S. A workstation class laptop that is upgradeable/repairable and marketed as MacBook Pro Workstation or Studio or really copy Asus and just call it MacBook Pro S

 

[leman]

We are not talking about throttling definitions, you're deflecting.

I'm not the one claiming that a computer is throttling. Might be helpful to have a reasonable definition for what constitutes throttling. Because so far, it seems that for you, a laptop is throttling if there is another laptop with same hardware that runs faster. Which is a rather eccentric way to define throttling.

My Thinkpad being thicker by only 3.2 millimeters and only an i7-8850 outpaces your i9 MBP and does so running a lot cooler. You face 100c consistently (and justify that its ok because that's what it supposed to run at), where as my temps are in the 70c range and maybe in the 80c range if I really push it

I have never argued agains the facts that the X1 Extreme is faster than the MBP or that it's CPU runs cooler under load. These are undisputed facts. I have also pointed out the reverse side of the bargain (hotter enclosure temperatures, approx 30% more total laptop volume, open bottom side for air intake, bad battery life, forced CPU throttle on battery that reduces the performance by 50%) on multiple occasions, in multiple threads. To me, the drawbacks of Lenovo's design outweights the 10% or so performance increase it gives in sustained multicore operation while plugged in.

And I have to say, I really don't understand why you re so fixated on CPU temperatures. Who cares? How does the CPU temperature affect your user experience? And again, I'd rather have a laptop that runs the CPU at 100C than one that runs the CPU at 80C but leaves burn marks on my desk. If this is still about the longevity argument, please do present evidence that Mac laptops built in last 8 years or so die from heat-related issues significantly ofter than gaming laptops.

 

[poorcody]

If making it thicker would "solve" any potential issues, I would be for it. But I have to say, I upgraded from a 13" to a 15" after the design got smaller, because I found the portability more acceptable than the 2015 version.

I really need convincing, though, that being thin is the root of any existing problems. Even with the keyboard, don't other manufacturers have similar thickness with "regular" keys? And upgradable internals? Can you really not come up with a better cooler design in a thin case? Maybe it's too thin for USB-A or Ethernet or such, but I personally have never found the USB-C ports to be any issue.

One thing I would like to see is an "attachable slice", that you could snap to the bottom of the laptop, like ThinkPad's used to have. If I could extend the battery and storage with that at times I wanted it, but keep it thin when I was traveling and didn't need it, that would be ideal.

 

[jerryk]

...
I really need convincing, though, that being thin is the root of any existing problems. Even with the keyboard, don't other manufacturers have similar thickness with "regular" keys? And upgradable internals? Can you really not come up with a better cooler design in a thin case? Maybe it's too thin for USB-A or Ethernet or such, but I personally have never found the USB-C ports to be any issue.
...

I agree. There is more than just thinness. It is a series of design and engineering decisions. After all, retina Macbook Pros have always had soldered on memory, even when competitors had memory modules in chassis of similar sizes.

 

[Porkchop Sandwich]

“Make it thick again?”

Hell no! The last two gens of the mbp (13 in my case) have been about as nice a laptop anyone could ask for.

 

[pshufd]

The new Alienware 51 laptop:

 

[Garage Battle]

“Make it thick again?”

Hell no! The last two gens of the mbp (13 in my case) have been about as nice a laptop anyone could ask for.

The drive for thinness resulted in an unreliable, poorly satisfying, loud keyboard. They could have found middle ground by keeping a similar armature and increasing the key press strength.

Every problem these laptops are having, keyboard and flexgate, are a result of the thinness. 'Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn 't stop to think if they should."
[doublepost=1552582862][/doublepost]

Holy bejebus, batsman, That laptop pictured is thicker than the 1990 ibook and 4x the size of my mac mini!

its meant as an exaggeration/joke - the number of people responding to it seriously really puts concern in my faith in society. some of you people vote.

 

[PeterJP]

Every problem these laptops are having, keyboard and flexgate, are a result of the thinness.

This is utter misinformation, as has been beaten to death in this thread. And then to top it all you tell others you doubt their right to vote. Nice one.

 

[jerryk]

Since there are so many negative posts I thought I would do a search on some of the suggested "better" systems. It seems all of them have their issues also like overheating, keyboard failures, delaminating screens, poor keyboard backlighting, speakers popping, short battery life, etc.

So be sure you read up before you make a leap.

 

[MBAir2010]

some of you people vote.

Yes, their names are Chad

 

[MacNut]

I must admit these new machines are a lot lighter. I don't know if people are willing to give up sleek for function of a heavier thicker machine. The cat might be out of the bag. They might have to reimagine the pro machines.

 

[PeterJP]

I must admit these new machines are a lot lighter. I don't know if people are willing to give up sleek for function of a heavier thicker machine. The cat might be out of the bag. They might have to reimagine the pro machines.

I think that's a balanced view. I also don't believe that many people would give up the weight advantage. On the other hand, others do get more 'pro' configs in a package the same size. Reimagining the MacBook Pro with some sort of upgradeability doesn't seem out of the question. They could add an M.2 slot for a data disk and still control the boot disk with the T2 (or T3) for privacy and to save costs. It's just a few PCIe lanes and a connector, but it buys pros a world of expansion. Same for RAM slots.

 

[danwells]

Could Apple liquid cool a laptop? They do have a ton of engineering resources - even if they choose to use them for iThings right now.

Intel has moved the goalposts on TDP. Someone (Anandtech?) ran a comparison between 7th Generation and 9th Generation desktop chips with the same supposed TDP (~95 watts), and the older chip stayed within 95 watts even at significant turbo. It really never got above 95 watts unless overclocked by a significant amount (even the light overclocks and turbo unlocks performed automatically by many motherboards kept it under 95 watts). The 9th Generation chip with more cores (I think it was 7700K vs. 9900K, so 4 cores vs. 8) ran well over 95 watts without any overclocking at all. It got up to 120-130 watts at completely stock clocks, and 160 or so with nothing more than increasing the number of cores that can hit a given turbo, which most motherboards you might use with a 9900K do without even asking.

Even though Intel claims those two chips have the same TDP, practically speaking, they don't. When Intel raised the core count, they raised real power dissipation without making that clear in the specs. Yes, you can run a 9900K at 95 watts - at base clocks - a restriction that hasn't existed before. Traditionally, TDP had turbo headroom, although it was easy to exceed with serious overclocking.

I haven't seen the same type of study for the mobile chips, but I suspect the same thing is going on. The "45 watt" i9 might be a 60-65 watt chip in real life? Who knows what the 8 core 9th Generation will be?

 

[Queen6]

Could Apple liquid cool a laptop? They do have a ton of engineering resources - even if they choose to use them for iThings right now.

Intel has moved the goalposts on TDP. Someone (Anandtech?) ran a comparison between 7th Generation and 9th Generation desktop chips with the same supposed TDP (~95 watts), and the older chip stayed within 95 watts even at significant turbo. It really never got above 95 watts unless overclocked by a significant amount (even the light overclocks and turbo unlocks performed automatically by many motherboards kept it under 95 watts). The 9th Generation chip with more cores (I think it was 7700K vs. 9900K, so 4 cores vs. 8) ran well over 95 watts without any overclocking at all. It got up to 120-130 watts at completely stock clocks, and 160 or so with nothing more than increasing the number of cores that can hit a given turbo, which most motherboards you might use with a 9900K do without even asking.

Even though Intel claims those two chips have the same TDP, practically speaking, they don't. When Intel raised the core count, they raised real power dissipation without making that clear in the specs. Yes, you can run a 9900K at 95 watts - at base clocks - a restriction that hasn't existed before. Traditionally, TDP had turbo headroom, although it was easy to exceed with serious overclocking.

I haven't seen the same type of study for the mobile chips, but I suspect the same thing is going on. The "45 watt" i9 might be a 60-65 watt chip in real life? Who knows what the 8 core 9th Generation will be?

Currently Apple couldn't find it's ass with both hands, we expect delivery not excuses. Thinking TDP is the only limiting factor is naïve at best. The 8th Gen CPU's are designed to punch up well above the base frequency. Current Intel mobile H series CPU's have never been more powerful. Apple ****ed up due to it's self serving design philosophy, resulting in big numbers for bar talk little else. Base i7 2.2GHz will easily out perform Apple's i9 solution it's embarrassing at best, insulting at worst, any doubts.

I'm waiting...

Premium is inclusive of performance, not just sales and marketing BS...

Q-6

 

[bambooshots]

I am wondering if you are saying that just to justify your purchase, or would you think the same even if you didn't buy this years MBP...


You are basically saying that Apple shall not listen to customer feedback?

Apple certainly doesn’t HAVE to listen to customer feedback.

But I have a feeling they do and they balance that with what their vision of the next few years of consumer computing will be.

 

[agaskew]

Apple certainly doesn’t HAVE to listen to customer feedback.

But I have a feeling they do and they balance that with what their vision of the next few years of consumer computing will be.

Their primary concern is neither, its making money for their shareholders.

 

[bambooshots]

Their primary concern is neither, its making money for their shareholders.

And as a consumer you can either support them and their business views with giving them more of your money or moving on to a company that does not cater to the shareholders.

 

[StellarVixen]

The new Alienware 51 laptop:

That might as well be desktop. That borderline meets the definition of "laptop".

What kind of laps do you need to have for that to stand on them for more than 5 min?

 

[theluggage]

The new Alienware 51 laptop:

So what do you want to compare that with in terms of portability?

(a) A MacBook Pro on its own, or
(b) a MacBook Pro, tb3 dock, external hard drive/SSD, eGPU and maybe a second display... or
(c) an iMac in a flight case?

...because you're not seriously going to be looking at that type of system if (a) fits your needs.

This isn't about snatching thin'n'crispy MBP ultrabooks from the hands of people who love them, its about Apple not having any deep pan 'desktop replacements' on the menu.

But I have a feeling they do and they balance that with what their vision of the next few years of consumer computing will be.

I think, for the Mac to have a long-term future, Apple need to spin of the Mac as a mainly autonomous division that can start behaving like a top-5 personal computer maker rather than as the iPhone's disappointing elder sibling. Millions of people still depend on personal computers to do their jobs and hobbies because there are things that smartphones and pure-touch tablets (which are now pretty much dead except for the iPad) are useless at. There will be money to be made for years to come, but not the meteoric, Moore's-law-driven growth of the past.

(Its like walking into a white-goods store and finding that they only sell fat-free fryers and coffee pod machines because there's no windfall growth potential in refrigerators, ovens and microwaves).

At the moment, the Mac designers are just looking for sensation (thinner! lighter!) to justify high prices, cash in on BTO upgrades and offer a range that only includes the top-grossing entry in each class. The entire MacBook range, for instance, now consists of variations on the same theme with progressively larger CPUs, GPUs and screens on (basically) scaled versions of the same chassis. Prefer a keyboard with more travel? Tough. Disagree that USB-3 and HDMI ports are "legacy"? Tough. Want a couple of TB of don't-care-about-speed storage to carry around a media library/archive without needing an external drive? Sell a kidney. Doing something like web development, DTP or big spreadsheets that doesn't bother the CPU/GPU much but needs a 15" screen? Sell the other kidney to get an i7 and dGPU that you don't need.

Apple are one of the 5 largest personal computer makers - and the only legitimate choice if you want to run MacOS - they ought to be able to sustain a bit more diversity in their product line (Jobs' old 'product matrix' was less sparse, and that was in the context of Apple's near bankruptcy and a more total Wintel monopoly than today).

 

[Queen6]

That might as well be desktop. That borderline meets the definition of "laptop".

What kind of laps do you need to have for that to stand on them for more than 5 min?

It's smaller than you would think given what's inside. For those of us on the go that need performance a serious proposition. I've seen the AW-51 TBH I expected a far bigger chassis, big it is, performance it's not short of by any means.

Q-6

 

[zosobao5150]

I would be willing to live with whatever is needed to solve the thermal issues with these powerful machines.