Intel's New Core i9 and Coffee Lake Chips Pave Way for Quad-Core 13" MacBook Pro, Mac Mini Refresh, and More

[AndrewWx]

Does anyone know how much a slowdown the patches for Meltdown and Spectre create?

I would really like to buy a new MBP this year, but I do not want a hobbled CPU.

Thanks in advance

 

[PickUrPoison]

Every year Intel releases new processors that suitable for MacMini, yet Apple choosing not to upgrade it. The last 4 core MacMini came in 2012 and since then it went down to 2 cores without to many updates, wonder when we’ll see 4 core (or even better, 6 core) version again…

About 13” MBP with 4 cores - that would be a dream come true, but i doubt Apple will release anytime soon. Although, if they’ll use the new 6 core version for the 15” MBP, there is a chance for it to happen.

It will be perfect timing for the 4 core 13” MBP to come out, my 13” MBP start to show its age… finger crossed.

For the 2014 mini, Apple moved to a 28W max for the CPU, dropped the Mac mini server SKU and re-positioned the mini towards the home consumer. Now that there’s finally a quad core 28W CPU with GT3e graphics, I do expect to see it in the new mini.

Re: the MBP, I don’t think there’s any doubt we’ll see quad cores in the 13” MBP. The entry level non-Touch Bar 13” models looks like they will stay dual core, as Intel hasn’t announced a suitable quad core at 15W.

I think the 15” will have quad cores (probably the 65W G-series with the AMD dGPU on-package) at the lower end while the higher end will have hexacores with a traditional (separate) dGPU.

 

[splitpea]

Guess my next laptop is going to run Linux. With 32GB RAM and a physical function key row and a headphone jack and maybe even some ports that don't require dongles. Shame.

But that old 8GB 2012 model just isn't going to make it another 2 years waiting to even find out if Apple will ever release another truly developer-friendly laptop.

 

[Galatian]

These were released today? I don't think any of the MBPs use 100W, do they?

Intel unveiled them during CES earlier this year, and the first product (Hades Canyon NUC) just started shipping. The chip includes a pretty powerful GPU, so it replaces both the Intel CPU plus AMD GPU that is found in the 15” MBP hence 100W or 65W TDP that is split between essentially GPU and CPU will be fine.

 

[Abazigal]

People don’t always buy 32GB because they need it but because they want it and they can have it.
I can think of one nameless company buying Dell 7480 with i7 and 32GB not because they need them but because they can have them.
Apple doesn’t offer 32GB and is therefore losing out on these lucrative sales.
I for one is perfectly happy with my 2016 Mbp retina with 16GB but if the 32GB had been available at the time, I would have bought it.
Not because I am stupid but, just in case..

Yeah, but at what cost that 32 gb ram? You are essentially asking everyone else who opted for 16 gb of ram or less to accept worse battery life just for the few who might want more ram.

 

[maflynn]

Yeah, but at what cost that 32 gb ram? You are essentially asking everyone else who opted for 16 gb of ram or less to accept worse battery life just for the few who might want more ram.

Agreed, and those folks are are a clear minority.

 

[TheHurryKayne]

Did someone say Mac Mini refresh?

I don't see any new mini,pro or 13 quad.I think i'm going to buy a 13 no touchbar with i7 and hyper threading,the only "quad" ,i think,will ever be on the 13.
[doublepost=1522841353][/doublepost]

Quad core 13” MacBook Pro would be really nice. With eGPUs I don’t even care about discrete graphics anymore.

This would be really too good for Apple to let it happen.

 

[manu chao]

Sure, Apple could hold off on offering 32GB on the rMB even after it gets the new processor that could support it, but what would they have to gain from that? The 13” MBP and the 12” rMB have roughly equivalent price points when similarly configured. I don’t think Apple prefers that you’d by a 13” MBP instead of the 12” rMB.

In the case of the MacBook Air, it’s true Apple doesn’t sell 16GB configs. It’s not because there’s no demand; rather, it’s a market segmentation play to bump you up to the more expensive—and profitable—13” MBP or 12” rMB. If you want 16GB, you’ve got to move up to a more expensive line. But again, I don’t think Apple has a preference between those two alternatives.

And market segmentation will be their motivation to not offer the MB with 32 GB before the MBP (in both sizes) can also have 32 GB (I'd be willing to bet big on that). Market segmentation has several layers, from entry price over price with equal specs (as much as possible) to maximum specs (eg, largest SSD size). And the Touch Bar 13" MBP sits above the MB on all three levels.

The story of the MBP Escape is a bit more muddled. It has the same entry-level price as the MB and can be less expensive for the same RAM and storage configurations. But it has a higher maximum SSD size and it has better CPU and GPU performance. You don't get the MB if you want maximum performance in a 12 to 13" frame. The MB is segmented as the most compact Mac laptop, that is why it has a price premium in some configurations. Making the MB more powerful (in some regards, ie, via a higher RAM ceiling) would be incongruous in terms of pitching the MB as the most compact and the two 13" MBP variants as higher-powered options.

 

[Felix01]

I don't care if it 'compromises battery life', I know what I'm getting into. 32GB is not a luxury anymore, it's needed for anyone who does heavy development work on the go.

90% of the time, I'm powered, anyway; the laptop just gives me the freedom to take that power anywhere.

And the quicker Corporate Apple get's that through their thick skull, the better.

I don't know who does the advising about what real pro users need and want but they are apparently wide of the mark. I could easily make do with a mere two hours of battery life if that space were turned into things I really need...more RAM, faster processor and graphics card, better cooling so things don't get throttled. I nearly always plug my laptop in so battery life is not a real concern. But portability is!

Fortunately, on the long hauls, my company authorizes Business Elite or First Class and it's usually not difficult to find an international carrier with 110 volt power outlets in those sections.

Excellent post, Morgan.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I agree. The 4th gen MacBook Pros have gotten an unfair bad rap. They’re excellent machines. Yes, they’re not user upgradeable but they offer many advantages over their predecessors. 4 TB3 ports are really a big deal and TB3 is getting more support by the month. eGPUs are now a viable option and we’ll see a lot more TB3 stuff that doesn’t require the use of dongles. The main complaint is the lack of built in USB Type A ports but those will be on the way out. Apple always kills older tech early and they’re usually never wrong. They killed the floppy, the CD drive, the DVD drive, were one of the first companies to embrace Wifi and all of the subsequent standards. There’s a lot of freedom in choosing what you want to use each port for.

People in general have a hard time adapting to change but eventually come to embrace it. I bought a 15” 2016 as soon as it was available and I’ll upgrade when 32GB Ram is offered along with a CPU much better than the 6820HQ in my machine.

You did not give one example to back that statement for the everyday user. TB3, while being higher performance, is not usually a superior substitute to USB. It's expensive, and most of the gadgets one plugs into a notebook do not need the speed of TB3. eGPU? Useful for a few, but who wants their Macbook straddled by that behemoth box. Most people don't need or want one. Nor do most people connect 10-bay drive arrays that might need the speed of TB3.

So far I have not seen any sign that USB is going away. Flash drives, wireless mice/keyboards (non-Apple brand), printers, scanners, iPhone/iPad cables...you name it, they are still USB-A. USB-C is trying hard to replace it, but it's still USB.

I would say that user-upgradeability ranks higher on the average users' wish-list for Macbooks than TB3.

 

[Eightarmedpet]

Whose going to buy a new intel mac now we know that Arm based ones are the future ?

Anyone who needs a computer between now and then?

 

[hardwickj]

I don't care if it 'compromises battery life', I know what I'm getting into. 32GB is not a luxury anymore, it's needed for anyone who does heavy development work on the go.

90% of the time, I'm powered, anyway; the laptop just gives me the freedom to take that power anywhere.

I'm in the same boat as you, but you're being foolish if you think Apple would actually accommodate our needs at the expense of 99% of the rest of their user base.

 

[Trolle]

This thread should just merge with the Waiting for 2018 Macbook pro thread

 

[hajime]

Several manufacturers have already announced i9 laptops.

If Apple is going to ditch Intel and replace MBP with iPad PRO in 2020, probably they will not bother to put i9 in the up-coming models.

 

[GeneralChang]

97% of computer purchasers want 32GB of RAM? Not sure to which planet you are referring but, here on Earth...uh......no.

I think I may have misunderstood your post, which I read as saying "'not everyone' means two people on the planet don't want 32GB of RAM." Your reply suggests you intended the opposite.

And you seem to have misunderstood my post, which was meant to read as "the number of people who fall into the OP's 'not everyone' category is probably 97% of computer users ever."

 

[snortpig]

Re: the MBP, I don’t think there’s any doubt we’ll see quad cores in the 13” MBP. The entry level non-Touch Bar 13” models looks like they will stay dual core, as Intel hasn’t announced a suitable quad core at 15W.

Do you mean they will stay at 5th gen Intel instead of offering quad core? Intel has 15W quad core parts if you don't mind UHD 630 graphics instead of Iris pro.

 

[deputy_doofy]

97% of computer purchasers want 32GB of RAM? Not sure to which planet you are referring but, here on Earth...uh......no.

Agreed. I want 32GB RAM, but I still know many that are just fine with 8. Quite honestly, 16 is still plenty good for everyone, but that won't last forever.

 

[hudson1]

And market segmentation will be their motivation to not offer the MB with 32 GB before the MBP (in both sizes) can also have 32 GB (I'd be willing to bet big on that). Market segmentation has several layers, from entry price over price with equal specs (as much as possible) to maximum specs (eg, largest SSD size). And the Touch Bar 13" MBP sits above the MB on all three levels.

The story of the MBP Escape is a bit more muddled. It has the same entry-level price as the MB and can be less expensive for the same RAM and storage configurations. But it has a higher maximum SSD size and it has better CPU and GPU performance. You don't get the MB if you want maximum performance in a 12 to 13" frame. The MB is segmented as the most compact Mac laptop, that is why it has a price premium in some configurations. Making the MB more powerful (in some regards, ie, via a higher RAM ceiling) would be incongruous in terms of pitching the MB as the most compact and the two 13" MBP variants as higher-powered options.

I always considered the MBP to be significantly more expensive than the MB.

MB (8GB/256GB) -- $1300
MBP (8GB/256GB) -- $1500

Is there something I'm missing that you were referring to?

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Totally the kind of d... move Apple would pull. I'm willing to bet they'll never introduce the non-touchbar version for 15" either. And no chance we'll see a 17".

17" won't return because 17" didn't sell. There's no reason to waste money making a product that doesn't sell. If 98% of your buyers are going for 13-25" models, is makes zero financial sense to produce a 17" that few will buy.

 

[Ho Tai]

A 6-core mac mini 32gb of ram.. wouldn't that be something...

I mean, really, just take the components straight out of the MBP put them in a little box and majority of people will be SUPER happy.

I'm thirsting for a new Mac Mini. Not buying a four-year-old design, and no real estate for another notebook. I'd buy an updated Mini in a Mini-second.

 

[manu chao]

Do you mean they will stay at 5th gen Intel instead of offering quad core? Intel has 15W quad core parts if you don't mind UHD 630 graphics instead of Iris pro.

Apple has tended to use best integrated graphics Intel is offering:

• 13" MBP Escape: Iris Pro 640 (the highest iGPU in 15-W TDP Kaby Lake processors)
• 13" MBP Touchbar: Iris Pro 650
• MBA: HD 6000
• 12" MB: HD 615

The late 2015 21.5" iMac even staid on an older CPU generation (Broadwell) because (4-core desktop) Skylake processors with Iris Pro iGPUs didn't come out until the second quarter of 2016. The 27" iMac from that generation got Skylake because it also came with a discrete GPU and thus the performance of the integrated one didn't matter too much.

My guess would thus be that Apple won't use 15 W TDP quad-core chips as long as they don't come with an Iris Pro (which they quite possibly might not for quite a while because the quad-core and the Iris Pro need to be traded against each other at a TDP of 15 W).

 

[Yvan256]

17" won't return because 17" didn't sell. There's no reason to waste money making a product that doesn't sell. If 98% of your buyers are going for 13-25" models, is makes zero financial sense to produce a 17" that few will buy.

I know it's a typo (surely you meant 13-15" models), but can you imagine a 25" MacBook Pro?

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

If you think this is bad, wait until Apple tries to sell you a Mac with some mobile grade Arm processor, lol.

By the time they make the switch to their custom-designed ARM chips, those chips won't be considered "mobile grade".

 

[magicschoolbus]

I will buy an Intel mac before the iPad processors get thrown in them.

Yuck. Tim Cook is killing Apple. I wonder if I should just leave the ecosystem altogether.

 

[bladerunner2000]

By the time they make the switch to their custom-designed ARM chips, those chips won't be considered "mobile grade".

Yeah... that's assuming that Intel doesn't do ANYTHING in that time. I got money that says even if they decided to come to a full stop right now, ARM chips still wouldn't compete 2 years down the line.

You really think they can put out a Core i7 or Xeon level processor that fast?