How do you even check for something like that, dying logic board and memory leak
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.
likelyhood of intel 11th gen?
- Thread starter ilikewhey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unlikely. Tiger Lake runs cooler but not that much cooler. It still needs 20 watts to hit 4.8 ghz. And Intel would need to clock it higher to match the performance of the current i9 SKUs.
Haha yes and no, for example I noticed every time I open the lid the CPU spikes to 100c every time, causing the fan to spun up to 6k,Is it possible that You are looking for an excuse why You need an upgrade?
Sounds like you have some misbehaving software on your system. That not normal.
I think that the art of beeing happy with what You have is to avoid focussing Your mind on the negative issues, because then You have no chance ever beeing happy with it.
I replaced my maxed out 15" MBP 2015 with the i7 13" MBP 2020 and I know exactly that it is not better or faster than the 2015 15" MBP (no sd card reader, no USB3 interfaces, . . . ). But I thought I absolutely need it. But when I am honest, it just was GAS and waste of money.
I replaced my maxed out 15" MBP 2015 with the i7 13" MBP 2020 and I know exactly that it is not better or faster than the 2015 15" MBP (no sd card reader, no USB3 interfaces, . . . ). But I thought I absolutely need it. But when I am honest, it just was GAS and waste of money.
Your situation is a bit different you went from 4 cores to 4 cores, I’m still stuck on 2 cores
The very most applications I use work only with one core, so the developement direction to increase the number of cores and decrease the core frequency has, at least for me, the effect that according speed the new versions are not really faster.
upon opening lid and couple other times, both cores are maxed out, so at least for me i see the benefit of getting the 2020.
I wouldn't hold my breath for a 16" MacBook Pro with 11th gen, let alone ANY Mac with 11th Gen. AT BEST, you'll see an update with 10th Gen in the next month. That's AT BEST. Past that, you're likely only seeing Apple Silicon launches from here on in.
You can check for memory leaks with Activity Monitor. Chrome isn't the most memory efficient browser (though there are leaner Chromium based browsers that aren't as bad), though for only 20 tabs open, unless they're all using intensive media, to be lagging on 16GB of RAM is highly unusual. Dying logic board can be checked with diagnostic utilities. You can use what comes with the Mac by booting the Mac and holding down the 'D' key, though it's not necessarily guaranteed to find a problem.
When was the last time the machine was opened and dusted out? You may want to do this. Similarly, you might want to re-apply thermal paste to the heatsink and processor as that will certainly result in less need for fans to go nuts. It will also make it so the CPU is cooler.
Again, I have the same machine (as well as a 2012 version with half the RAM); unless something really wacky is going on with Chrome, Safari, or some other background process you may have open but not be aware of, your Early 2015 13" shouldn't be doing this. That's not to say that you shouldn't be thinking of the next machine; just more that your current one should still have plenty of life left in it.
You may also want to consider wiping the OS and starting fresh. That often resolves issues. Again, I wouldn't get the current 2020 13" MacBook Pros unless your needs specifically entail things that will only be possible on Intel Macs (Boot Camp, natively booting other x86 operating systems, x86 virtualization); Apple Silicon versions are right around the corner.
repaste about 2 months ago, used noctua paste. doing a clean wipe is going to be alot of work, i have alot of files and apps that would probably take half a day, and even then i'm pretty sure its gonna miss something and rekt my work flow.
I really wish there's an 11th gen Intel MBP. The new XE graphics sound amazing and I have been reading about the benchmarks with envy. If it comes out next month, I will be the first in line to buy it and then wait out the 2-3 years for Apple Silicon to mature and for most software to be updated for it.
For now, the 10th gen Intel one seems like poor value.
For now, the 10th gen Intel one seems like poor value.
On the other hand, your willingness to jump into AS v1 will be way higher if MBS do NOT have super duper XE graphics.
Hah, while that may be somewhat true, I’d really rather enjoy a few more years of seamless windows support too, as I use parallels now and then.
For now, I’m waiting like everyone else for the new MBPs to launch. If AS is amazing and much faster than the current Intel ones, I’d get that. Otherwise I’ll be looking for a bargain on the 10th gen.
Based on the data we have so far, I’d wager something like this. Pessimistically, early Apple Silicon is going to be as fast as 30Watt Tiger Lake, but at half the power consumption. Optimistically, it is going to be anywhere from 20% to 50% faster.
I am curious whether Dell is going to use 15watt or 28watt profile for Tiger Lake. Couldn’t find any info.
Tiger Lake hold the graphics power of past generation consoles (PS4)
I think would be quite intelligent if Apple release some models with Intel 11th Gen (using same integrated GPU)
meanwhile starting the transition of some models
let's see what they do, in 3-4 days there is apple conference
really... dont expect actual ARMs being faster than Tiger Lake
but....
I do believe ARM should stay for nornal users, and they should keep Intel for profesional line.
Same is happening with servers where you find Xeon but, because is an specific chipset for big workstations.
Intel also told about releasing their own ARM chipsets.
And now that Nvidia bought ARM...
future is uncertain
Do not lie ourselfs, most money today is made trough mobile phones.
I foresee a future where your mobile would be your computer.
Only high end professionals and/or fanatic gamers would be using big computers.
in 2 years ARM mobile chipsets (not even talking about new desktop ARM line) would be enough powerful to cover most common tasks (not including high end gaming here, apple never made their computers for gaming). Also new console generation is just releasing now, so do not expect another big graphic jump before 6-8 year (what usually last a console generation).
Apple could release Mac desktops with new ARM solutions hadn't seen before (multi ARM chipsets in same motherboard + AMD GPUs) , but I do not see this move to happen straight away, mainly because they need to compete with the actual market and also ARM MacOS is not mature yet (talking about apps here).
I do expect to see more Intel chipsets while doing ARM transition (they said it would take 2 years). It could mean, after 2 years they only will use ARM.
They didn't say they were droping Intel straight away.
Last edited:
Hey all, so it seems like ARM and mini-LED for the 16" aren't coming until 2021. I know none of us have a magic crystal ball to know for sure, but is there any precedent with the MBP release history that suggests we won't get any kind of refresh until then? Won't that be the longest cycle for a MBP refresh ever?
If there is one though, 11th gen Intel and maybe a 1080p camera would be the only changes right?
If there is one though, 11th gen Intel and maybe a 1080p camera would be the only changes right?
That’s impressive compared to the previous **** intel has put out but apple chips in iPads have had the same power as current gen consoles for at least two years now. Apple‘s newest chips will far surpass that.
qpple iPad has same power as wii, not as PS4... quite different
nowadays you couldnt play The Witcher 3 high end set on iPad
You’re just pulling comparisons out of thin air. Apple themselves say the GPU in the iPad Pro 2018 is equivalent to the Xbox One S. This is a well established fact.
And you couldn’t play The Witcher 3 on an iPad? You do know The Witcher 3 is available on the Nintendo Switch, right? The Switch isn’t as powerful as an Xbox One S. Therefore the Switch is less powerful graphically than an iPad Pro. So, yes The Witcher 3 could be played on an iPad Pro if it were ported over.
The Switch actually is much more powerful than it seems, but Nintendo scales it back, and then game devs also scale back their games just so it can save on battery life.
The "new" Nintendo Switch with the more efficient processor and still the meager 16WHr battery can last 4-5 hours playing Fortnite. An iPad Pro with 36WHr battery (more than twice the capacity) lasts just about as much regardless of what settings you try. If you push it hard to 120fps (at roughly the same settings as the Switch, actually), that figure drops even more significantly.
There's a reason I only game "seriously" on my Switch, and my iPad Pro is mostly a media consumption device.
Also the Xbox One S was the worst-performing console of the last generation. It's barely able to do 30fps at 900p (not even 1080p) in most games, so I'm not sure you'd want to use that as a point of comparison.
On the other hand, the Xbox Series X, the most powerful of the last generation, can dish out 4K 60fps in quite a few games. And my 16" MacBook Pro is just barely below that console. That's the hurdle Apple will have to jump over if they want to convince me I need a 16" MacBook with Apple Silicon.
And it looks like Big Sur already hinted at an answer:
www.techspot.com
Makes no sense to include new AMD drivers if Apple wanted to go all-in with their own chips. Sounds like one of the below scenarios can happen to me:
1. There will still be Intel Macs coming... and some of them will use AMD RX6000 series chips.
2. AMD is developing drivers specifically for Apple Silicon.
And in either of those cases, it's clear to me that even Apple themselves are not confident they can overcome the GPU performance hurdle so soon. And that sounds more realistic than claims that Apple Silicon will completely blow both Intel and AMD away.
The "new" Nintendo Switch with the more efficient processor and still the meager 16WHr battery can last 4-5 hours playing Fortnite. An iPad Pro with 36WHr battery (more than twice the capacity) lasts just about as much regardless of what settings you try. If you push it hard to 120fps (at roughly the same settings as the Switch, actually), that figure drops even more significantly.
There's a reason I only game "seriously" on my Switch, and my iPad Pro is mostly a media consumption device.
Also the Xbox One S was the worst-performing console of the last generation. It's barely able to do 30fps at 900p (not even 1080p) in most games, so I'm not sure you'd want to use that as a point of comparison.
On the other hand, the Xbox Series X, the most powerful of the last generation, can dish out 4K 60fps in quite a few games. And my 16" MacBook Pro is just barely below that console. That's the hurdle Apple will have to jump over if they want to convince me I need a 16" MacBook with Apple Silicon.
And it looks like Big Sur already hinted at an answer:
AMD Radeon RX 6000 GPUs revealed in macOS Big Sur code: up to 5120 cores, 2.5 GHz
Listed plainly and clearly within macOS code is the number of compute units each GPU will have: Navi 21 will have 80, Navi 22 will have 40,...
www.techspot.com
Makes no sense to include new AMD drivers if Apple wanted to go all-in with their own chips. Sounds like one of the below scenarios can happen to me:
1. There will still be Intel Macs coming... and some of them will use AMD RX6000 series chips.
2. AMD is developing drivers specifically for Apple Silicon.
And in either of those cases, it's clear to me that even Apple themselves are not confident they can overcome the GPU performance hurdle so soon. And that sounds more realistic than claims that Apple Silicon will completely blow both Intel and AMD away.
The Switch actually is much more powerful than it seems, but Nintendo scales it back, and then game devs also scale back their games just so it can save on battery life.
The "new" Nintendo Switch with the more efficient processor and still the meager 16WHr battery can last 4-5 hours playing Fortnite. An iPad Pro with 36WHr battery (more than twice the capacity) lasts just about as much regardless of what settings you try. If you push it hard to 120fps (at roughly the same settings as the Switch, actually), that figure drops even more significantly.
There's a reason I only game "seriously" on my Switch, and my iPad Pro is mostly a media consumption device.
Also the Xbox One S was the worst-performing console of the last generation. It's barely able to do 30fps at 900p (not even 1080p) in most games, so I'm not sure you'd want to use that as a point of comparison.
On the other hand, the Xbox Series X, the most powerful of the last generation, can dish out 4K 60fps in quite a few games. And my 16" MacBook Pro is just barely below that console. That's the hurdle Apple will have to jump over if they want to convince me I need a 16" MacBook with Apple Silicon.
And it looks like Big Sur already hinted at an answer:
AMD Radeon RX 6000 GPUs revealed in macOS Big Sur code: up to 5120 cores, 2.5 GHz
Listed plainly and clearly within macOS code is the number of compute units each GPU will have: Navi 21 will have 80, Navi 22 will have 40,...
Makes no sense to include new AMD drivers if Apple wanted to go all-in with their own chips. Sounds like one of the below scenarios can happen to me:
1. There will still be Intel Macs coming... and some of them will use AMD RX6000 series chips.
2. AMD is developing drivers specifically for Apple Silicon.
And in either of those cases, it's clear to me that even Apple themselves are not confident they can overcome the GPU performance hurdle so soon. And that sounds more realistic than claims that Apple Silicon will completely blow both Intel and AMD away.
Comparing the battery of the Switch and the iPad Pro is not very useful at all. There’s so many differences between the two that it doesn’t make sense at all. The point is that the iPad has the capability.
The iPad being a “serious” gaming machine is also neither here nor there. We’re talking about the power of the devices, not how they are utilised. The Switch as a pure console is obviously a much better gaming device.
You’re also confusing all of the Xbox consoles that you mentioned. The Xbox One S is not the weakest console from the current generation. It is the higher clocked revision of the original Xbox One. The Xbox One S is more powerful than the Xbox One and is capable of upscaling games to 4K. It’s also (slightly) more powerful than the PS4 which the previous person was using as their reference point.
The Xbox One X (not the Xbox Series X) could play some games at 4K/60FPS but not major games. You could mostly play games at either 4K or 60FPS. The next generation console releasing next month, the Xbox Series X, is promising 4K/60FPS in most games. Still not all games. So you’re wildly off base on your Xbox points.
The discussion is about how much better Apple Silicon graphics will be compared to Intel, not whether they will match Intel. The fact is, in terms of graphics Intel’s Tiger Lake chips are possibly matching Apple’s efforts from two years ago. There is zero doubt that Apple is going to blow them away. The only question is by how much.