It has.. and in some ways it's a head-scratcher. Sure, offering more core's allows the OS to truly multi-task lots of processes. But at the end of the day the only way to get a single process to run faster is to RUN FASTER. It's the old "nine ladies can't make a baby in 1 month" puzzle. Hopefully the future holds a compromise of both approaches.
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.
Intel's New Core i9 and Coffee Lake Chips Pave Way for Quad-Core 13" MacBook Pro, Mac Mini Refresh, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It has.. and in some ways it's a head-scratcher. Sure, offering more core's allows the OS to truly multi-task lots of processes. But at the end of the day the only way to get a single process to run faster is to RUN FASTER. It's the old "nine ladies can't make a baby in 1 month" puzzle. Hopefully the future holds a compromise of both approaches.
My actual biggest complaint with Apple's notebook lineup right now is the naming. If we were to change the name of the MacBook to the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro to the MacBook, we wouldn't really have anything to complain about. Those are accurate descriptions of those products.
And then they introduce a limited range of 15 and 17 inch laptops above that that were thicker, had more io, bigger batteries, higher end GPUs and more RAM, then call that a MacBook Pro. A few of the higher end 15-inch current MBPs could stay on at the lower end of the new MBP line and I don't think anyone would mind.
But seriously, that's a branding fix. Nothing more complicated than that.
There are been newer chips suitable for the mini available for years now, and Apple has chosen to stick with 2013 tech. Why would we think that the availability of another new generation would matter to them?
It's also currently being balanced with the push down into smaller and more energy efficient manufacturing processes. There's tradeoffs to pushing a chip closer to any of those three points.
But only yesterday we were told Apple will be dumping intel in 2 years time.. and some on here thought it was a fantastic idea......
Personally I think unless they stick with Intel or AMD they will kill off the Mac sales full stop!
Let’s see if the 15” Pro gets the 6 core option and half decent Vega AMD GPU options.
Personally I think unless they stick with Intel or AMD they will kill off the Mac sales full stop!
Let’s see if the 15” Pro gets the 6 core option and half decent Vega AMD GPU options.
Announcement only? Did I miss? Don’t see anything regarding actual ship dates and Intel not reliable. Can’t see Apple using 2018.
I suspect since we're in April, Apple will possibly roll out new Macs during their WWDC address in June. I'm making the assumption that Intel will have the chips shipping by them.
1) Then Need to reintroduce the 17 inch laptop, for people who actually do work on their laptops, as their desktops.
2) They really need 32 Gig of Ram.
There are 17 inch laptop's out with 32GB ram:
Https://System76.com
the KUDA line looks awfully close to a Mac Book Pro 17 inch:
7th Gen Intel® Core i7-7700HQ: 2.8 up to 3.8 GHz – 6 MB cache – 4 cores – 8 threads
Display
17.3″ 1920 × 1080 LED Backlit, Matte
Graphics
Intel® HD Graphics 630
Memory
Up to 32 GB Dual Channel DDR4 @ 2400 MHz
Storage
M.2 SSD, 2.5″ SATA II. Up to 6TB total.
2) They really need 32 Gig of Ram.
There are 17 inch laptop's out with 32GB ram:
Https://System76.com
the KUDA line looks awfully close to a Mac Book Pro 17 inch:
7th Gen Intel® Core i7-7700HQ: 2.8 up to 3.8 GHz – 6 MB cache – 4 cores – 8 threads
Display
17.3″ 1920 × 1080 LED Backlit, Matte
Graphics
Intel® HD Graphics 630
Memory
Up to 32 GB Dual Channel DDR4 @ 2400 MHz
Storage
M.2 SSD, 2.5″ SATA II. Up to 6TB total.
That is totally fine, as long as you look at consider the whole market when it comes time for a replacement. By closing our eyes and not looking at the entire product space, we severely distort Apple's incentive structure to be responsive to the customer.
I’m in the market for a new MBP if they hit the right notes this year and I must say I do like the sound of this 6 core beast However, I’m not buying another laptop with a 16gb limit.
Been holding on a year and a half and I can probably make it another year if I get the battery changed on my 2012. But unfortunately the reality of my workflow (and I’m looking at you squarely at you, Photoshop, who will hold 16gb of files in memory even when those files are long closed) has made 32gb of RAM non-negotiable if I’m plonking down £3k+ on a new machine.
Been holding on a year and a half and I can probably make it another year if I get the battery changed on my 2012. But unfortunately the reality of my workflow (and I’m looking at you squarely at you, Photoshop, who will hold 16gb of files in memory even when those files are long closed) has made 32gb of RAM non-negotiable if I’m plonking down £3k+ on a new machine.
Available immediately as far as I can tell. You can already find the t cpu's on Newegg/Amazon, along with the new i5 and i3 variants (8600, 8500, 8300). Most likely Intel has already shipped the new U and H CPUs to OEMs. We'll definitely be seeing new MBP's at WWDC unless Apple announces them earlier.
This is what you can get right now with Linux.
Apple needs to Step Up.
From System76.com
Kudu Laptop
Base Price $969
Ubuntu 16.04.4 LTS (64-bit)
17.3″ Matte 1080p LED Backlit Display
3.8 GHz i7-7700HQ (2.8 up to 3.8 GHz – 6MB Cache – 4 Cores – 8 Threads)
Intel® HD Graphics 630
32 GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2400MHz (2× 16GB) $359
United States Keyboard
1 TB NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD $735
1 TB 2.5″ SSD $435
WiFi up to 867 Mbps + Bluetooth $20
External USB DVD-RW Drive $55
1 Year Limited Parts and Labor Warranty
Normal Assembly Service
Product total: $2,573
Apple needs to Step Up.
From System76.com
Kudu Laptop
Base Price $969
Ubuntu 16.04.4 LTS (64-bit)
17.3″ Matte 1080p LED Backlit Display
3.8 GHz i7-7700HQ (2.8 up to 3.8 GHz – 6MB Cache – 4 Cores – 8 Threads)
Intel® HD Graphics 630
32 GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2400MHz (2× 16GB) $359
United States Keyboard
1 TB NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD $735
1 TB 2.5″ SSD $435
WiFi up to 867 Mbps + Bluetooth $20
External USB DVD-RW Drive $55
1 Year Limited Parts and Labor Warranty
Normal Assembly Service
Product total: $2,573
I do actual work on my laptop and I certainly don't need a 17" model. Those days are long gone, and given that apple wasn't making enough money on them (Why else would they kill of a product), we'll not see a return imo.
Apple only gives us what they want, when they want. Look at Mac Pro or iMac Pro. Only care about iOS anyway now.
Last edited:
Apple could easily update the Mac Mini with new specs and even a new smaller design and still make good money, but they’ve clearly calculated that it won’t be as much money as pushing people to more profitable products like the Retina MacBook or iMacs.
They think or know that making a Mac Mini that’s competitive with budget PCs will result in a product that doesn’t meet their extremely high profit margin expectations. It’s not about what’s best for customers but what’s best for Apple’s profit and though the two are related, there’s still a surprisingly large disconnect when you’re a company as large and powerful as Apple.
As with all things Apple, it’s follow the money.
Last edited:
"Back in 2016, Apple's marketing chief Phil Schiller said 32GB of standard DDR4 RAM would compromise battery life."
Yes, of course it would. So, instead of using a larger battery, Apple will simply not offer a 32GB option. Meanwhile, the Windows PC side won't have a problem with having a 32GB option even if battery life is compromised. Go figure. I'm not complaining. I'm just puzzled when it comes to Apple's choices. We're not talking about a struggling company being unable to satisfy customers due to cost constraints. I personally don't need a 32GB option, so it doesn't affect me in any way. I would just think Apple should offer the option and tell users about the shortened battery life and leave that up to them. However, Apple must have some minimum battery life standards they won't break or a 32GB isn't a worthwhile cost option for Apple's bean-counters.
Yes, of course it would. So, instead of using a larger battery, Apple will simply not offer a 32GB option. Meanwhile, the Windows PC side won't have a problem with having a 32GB option even if battery life is compromised. Go figure. I'm not complaining. I'm just puzzled when it comes to Apple's choices. We're not talking about a struggling company being unable to satisfy customers due to cost constraints. I personally don't need a 32GB option, so it doesn't affect me in any way. I would just think Apple should offer the option and tell users about the shortened battery life and leave that up to them. However, Apple must have some minimum battery life standards they won't break or a 32GB isn't a worthwhile cost option for Apple's bean-counters.
I have a 2014 13'MacBook Pro topped out on RAM (16GB) and HD (512GB SSD), and I'll just keep it for one more year if the next gen MacBooks can't go up to 32GB of RAM.
I believe I'm not alone in this decision.
I believe I'm not alone in this decision.
Sure, but they still end up a good 30% over their previous less core-ey generation at the same wattage.
And it's more reason the 15" can still distinguish itself from the 13, 28 watts at most vs 45.
This is confusing to me, because this sounds contradictory, considering you are saying they STILL don't support LPDDR4, aka "Low Power" DDR4.