Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Launches New Skylake Chips Appropriate for 15-Inch Retina MacBook Pro

Wow, those are some expensive chips… no wonder there's talk of A-series ARM chips as future MacBook CPUs. Would really bring Apple's costs down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Jayderek said:
yeah, this is the problem with some being so obsessed about spec upgrades. Ultimately they're never going to be happy, because at some point as consumers, we have to just make a decision based on our needs and be good with that. Unless people have the disposable income to upgrade yearly, we have to learn to settle and not be so obsessive.
Click to expand...

For some people it's not all about the specs but about the life cycle. Buying a Mac at the beginning of the revision's life cycle makes sense if you want to maximize it's useful life. If you buy a current MacBook Pro right now, just before the next revision is about to ship, you are spending a lot of money on a 1 year old computer and cutting the same amount of time off it's useful life.

A lot of people (myself included) are in the market for a new MacBook Pro right now, but are waiting for the next revision to maximize useful life. This is especially applicable for people who hold onto their Macs for an extended period of time and don't upgrade every 1-2 years.

If you need a computer right now, buy one right now. If you can hold off, it would be wise to do so with todays news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duane Martin, You are the One, maluspumila and 5 others
ArtOfWarfare said:
I agree that 16 GB is fine for today. The issue is that I want my next computer to last me for 7-10 years (I bought my current iMac in October 2007. It's still my main machine now in January 2016, 8.25 years later.) I anticipate that the 16 GB is the thing that's going to limit its life the most. I would anticipate that 32 GB of RAM should be fine for the next several years.
Click to expand...

It truly is amazing how long these Macs last... My MBP is from late 2008 and runs the latest OS and works fine for most tasks. I'm looking to upgrade this year and I hope it lasts a good 4-5 years. By then, I expect the iPad to be the only computer I'll need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG and NMBob
Xil3 said:
Are you a video editor, or work with really large images on a daily basis? Other than that, I don't see a good reason for having anything over 16gb (RAM).

As a developer, there have been times when I ran out of memory (on my 8GB machine), but that can easily be fixed by optimizing code. Even the newest games don't need anywhere near that much memory.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why people constantly ask this question. Just because You don't have use for more RAM doesn't mean others don't have legitimate uses for it. My 32GB iMac is quite frequently a limitation when running VMs and router simulations or when stitching large panoramas in PhotoShop. I can only run 12 or the possible 20 Cisco IOS-XR and NS-OX routers with 32GB.

64GB would be great but Haswell capped at 32GB for the desktop processors but Skylake can support 64GB. So for me, if they would extend the 32/64GB limit over to the Macbook Pro it would make my VM work much easier.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: You are the One, iCloudStrife, maluspumila and 8 others
I *really really really* hate these kinds of ignorant responses. I'm a developer too. Would you believe there are types of software development *drastically* different than yours?

I work on a software stack that is primarily designed to be run on a cluster of larger machines. But, when doing development, we run it locally. This requires a plethora of running processes, each consuming varying amounts of memory. We've been drooling for 32GB in our MacBooks for literally *years* now.

Trust me, there is a whole world of use cases that would benefit from this beyond the very limited examples you provided and beyond your very limited experience.

Xil3 said:
Are you a video editor, or work with really large images on a daily basis? Other than that, I don't see a good reason for having anything over 16gb (RAM).

As a developer, there have been times when I ran out of memory (on my 8GB machine), but that can easily be fixed by optimizing code. Even the newest games don't need anywhere near that much memory.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: You are the One, maluspumila, mariogt and 6 others
ArtOfWarfare said:
I agree that 16 GB is fine for today. The issue is that I want my next computer to last me for 7-10 years (I bought my current iMac in October 2007. It's still my main machine now in January 2016, 8.25 years later.) I anticipate that the 16 GB is the thing that's going to limit its life the most. I would anticipate that 32 GB of RAM should be fine for the next several years.
Click to expand...
You could as well anticipate that quad-core is that thing that's going to limit its life and that octa-core should be fine for several years. Memory is not always going to double, because it did so in the past. Your current iMac is limited the most by not having Retina (pixel-doubling) and still being USB 2.0 and SATA 2. There is always something else that can be improved. You can't future-proof your machine by buying the best of what is available right now.
 
Xil3 said:
Are you a video editor, or work with really large images on a daily basis? Other than that, I don't see a good reason for having anything over 16gb (RAM).

As a developer, there have been times when I ran out of memory (on my 8GB machine), but that can easily be fixed by optimizing code. Even the newest games don't need anywhere near that much memory.
Click to expand...
What business is it of yours to tell someone else what they need, want, or could use. That's just asinine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladyc0524 and Mike1984
oneMadRssn said:
Intel really made a mistake by going with their tick-tock release schedule. It gave people the unreasonable expectation of a a huge leap in performance every 2 years, with a minor revision every other year in between. This is clearly an unrealistic schedule to keep up with, as they have consistently missed self-imposed deadlines.
Click to expand...

Intel has 0 obligations to release any products. Minor revision is enough to meet their revenue target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alvindarkness
What iGPU are they using?

I'm a little surprised at the timing, for some reason I thought it would be later, not in January
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
I am fed up of Apple using the ghetto Intel Iris/HD graphics in recent iMacs. When they include discrete Nvidia or AMD solutions, then I will consider. Intel's graphics drivers are a joke and I wonder how Apple expects people to buy and play latest games from App store with these worthless turds?

Intel has nailed the CPU part, but in terms of GPU speed, they are 2-3 generations behind.
 
sanke1 said:
Intel's graphics drivers are a joke and I wonder how Apple expects people to buy and play latest games from App store with these worthless turds?
Click to expand...

They don't. It's not called the MacBook Joy or MacBook Fun. The messaging on their pages is pretty clear. Yes, http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/performance-retina/ also mentions gaming, but 1) that's with the high-end variant with a dedicated GPU, and 2) most other pages focus on non-gaming uses. Apple is under no illusion that someone would buy a $2000+ iGPU laptop (mine is configured to close to $3k without dedicated graphics, two years ago) to primarily play games on it. They edit photos, audio and videos, develop, do calculations, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
WigWag Workshop said:
Would this be the same processor for an updated iMac?
Click to expand...
No. Below are the processor types Apple uses in their Macs (excl. the Mac Pro). Frequency ranges can change slightly from year to year. The processors referenced in this article are the H-series.

• Y-series, also called Core M, dual-core, 1.1 to 1.3 GHz, TDP 4.5 W: MacBook

• U-series, dual-core, 1.4 to 2.2 GHz, TDP 15 W: MacBook Air, entry-level 21.5" iMac and entry-level Mac Mini

• U-series, dual-core, 2.6 to 3.1 GHz, TDP 28 W: 13" MBP, Mac Mini

• H-series, quad-core, 2.2 to 2.8 GHz, TDP 47 W: 15" MBP

• R/S-series, quad-core, 2.7 to 3.1 GHz, TDP 65 W: 21.5" iMac

• no-letter-series, quad-core, 3.2 to 3.5 GHz, TDP 84 W: 27" iMac

• K-series, quad-core, 4.0 GHz, TDP 84 W: high-end 27" iMac
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WigWag Workshop, toke lahti and mikepj
maflynn said:
What iGPU are they using?

I'm a little surprised at the timing, for some reason I thought it would be later, not in January
Click to expand...

Iris Pro 580 for the 15" chips of course. Its the same stuff they will stuff into the Skull Canyon NUC.

And of course the Xeon's are using the P580.
 
Xil3 said:
Are you a video editor, or work with really large images on a daily basis? Other than that, I don't see a good reason for having anything over 16gb (RAM).

As a developer, there have been times when I ran out of memory (on my 8GB machine), but that can easily be fixed by optimizing code. Even the newest games don't need anywhere near that much memory.
Click to expand...

What a dumb post. i don't edit 4K video or medium format Img but I might have three or four hungry vms running concurrently . What, that's not legit to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeffirl and fastasleep
Remember when Apple used to be quick to get new generation intel chips into their computers? Back when they'd invest a little R&D to build computers around the greatest chips. Now they just sit around waiting until Intel releases chips that are quick and easy to adapt to their dated macs even if he earlier chips are better.

Well, at least I've been enjoying my i7-6700k for the past 6 months. I wonder if Apple will have a machine that can match it by 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: toke lahti, orbital~debris and sanke1
AppleMad98004 said:
Am I missing something but a .1 GHZ difference in the mobile Xeon means twice the cost from the mid range to highend?
Click to expand...

You're not missing anything. It's the highest-end option. You're either willing to pay the premium because that extra bit of performance is worth it to you, or you should go with a lower-end option. (Typically, it really isn't worth upgrading the CPU. That's not usually your bottleneck.)
 
DevNull0 said:
Remember when Apple used to be quick to get new generation intel chips into their computers? Back when they'd invest a little R&D to build computers around the greatest chips. Now they just sit around waiting until Intel releases chips that are quick and easy to adapt to their dated macs even if he earlier chips are better.

Well, at least I've been enjoying my i7-6700k for the past 6 months. I wonder if Apple will have a machine that can match it by 2020.
Click to expand...
Apart from the intention to diss Apple, I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psyfuzz, MrUNIMOG and HVDynamo
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back