Macbook Pro might not get 32 gb option until 2019

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by dk808, Nov 25, 2016.

  1. dk808 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    #1
  2. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #2
    Well, we can only hope that Coffee Lake gets support for LPDDR4. Or maybe there even be a Kaby Lake refresh with LPDDR4. So far, we don't know any details or Intel's plans so its pretty much speculation. But all in all, I think its very unlikely that we will see LPDDR4 in laptops in 2017. Unless AMD's new CPUs are that good.
     
  3. WhiteWhaleHolyGrail macrumors 6502a

    WhiteWhaleHolyGrail

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    #3
    Given the insane speeds of the SSD which would be utilised for any swap outs if you started peaking your RAM, why are people so hung up on this issue? Is it the principle of the matter?
     
  4. fokmik macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    I think who is buying 2016 macbook pro they will keep it for 3-4 years. So no problems
     
  5. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #5
    Well, the SSDs are still orders of magnitude slower in real life, and some workflows do benefit from having more RAM (even though personally I think that one should use a desktop in those cases). However, higher RAM density is not the only benefit of LPDDR4. You'd get lower power consumption and better performance, which is more important to me personally.
     
  6. WhiteWhaleHolyGrail macrumors 6502a

    WhiteWhaleHolyGrail

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    #6
    I hear you, but it does seem as though the majority of nay sayers are taking issue with 16GB RAM just because its not 32gb RAM without actual consideration of real world utility.
     
  7. monkeydax macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    #7
    Indeed, how many of them really need the 32GB remains to be seen.
     
  8. dk808 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    #8
    Probably a very small proportion of MacBook Pro users. A lot of them complain about 16 not being future proof though but I don't really see what will cause 16 gb to be not enough three years from now
     
  9. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    I think the 32GB is a nice move, but for my needs, I'm rocking with 8GB on my iMac, though I could benefit with 16GB at this point.
     
  10. New_Mac_Smell macrumors 68000

    New_Mac_Smell

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    Location:
    Shanghai
    #10
    One second, let me grab some popcorn before this thread takes off...

    I think there's a chance you could see 32GB RAM options at the end of next year (Albeit insane cost), but more likely 2018. This is my personal speculation based off zero research into Intel.
     
  11. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #11
  12. New_Mac_Smell macrumors 68000

    New_Mac_Smell

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    Location:
    Shanghai
    #12
    Exactly. We were stuck at 4GB for so long due to 32bit architecture, now we have 64bit, why aren't we at 16EB yet? Barely moved on since 10 years ago.
     
  13. jackoatmon, Nov 25, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2016

    jackoatmon macrumors 6502a

    jackoatmon

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    #13
    As has been mentioned above, the new macbook pros effectively come with up to 2 terrabytes of extra RAM in them, for all serious intents and purposes. The SSDs are fast, and page-outs aren't exactly something that happens every day when you have 16 gigs of ram. We're talking about saving a few seconds of your life, every once in a while, or having to shut down a couple programs. Programs that launch ultra fast as well. And for the vast vast majority, we're talking about adding an extra room to your house with no door to it.

    It's all a bunch of noise about nothing.

    People wanted to find stuff to hate about the new Macbook Pros, and on top of that, the computer industry has trained people to care wayyyy too much about CPU and RAM numerical specs rather than performance.

    A lot of people overestimate their use of RAM. The thing is, the first 3 gigs just run the OS and random whatever. So the difference from 4-8 is huge. It's the RAM that allows you to use programs that have fine textures and embedded images, big clipboards, hi-res wide-colour imagery – all the postmodern conveniences. The next 4, from 8 to 12, lets you run really taxing programs, and lots of them at once. Maybe you're making the imagery rather than just looking at it and manipulating it. After that, from 12 to 16, we're talking busiest-time-of-the-year luxury RAM. After that, 16-24gigs of RAM, jesus, you just have to be either working on a Hollywood movie, or actually making a video game, or testing a humongous website for a major company on a huge number of platforms. Or, dude, why the hell are you running Battlefield in a VM copy of Windows while you have Civ and a bunch of different work projects open in the background on OSX? Just close a couple programs for christ's sake.

    You get the picture.

    Great find, OP.
     
  14. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #14
    Nobody needs more than 4GB. If you think you do then you're using it wrong.
     
  15. R.P.G macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Location:
    Sydney
    #15
    is this 32GB limitation is specific to Macs? what other companies are using when they have 32GB? aren't they LPDDR4? where is the issue exactly? can some one help me understand this ? please.

    32GB is sometimes useful when you run third party software. so, its good to have if you are developer or in a consulting role.
     
  16. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #16
    They are using DDR4. Apple decided to use LPDDR3 out of efficiency concerns.
     
  17. Oppenheim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2015
    #17
    Doesn't need 32GB.

    These modern, power-efficient Intel CPUs have a lengthening hierarchy of memories/caches/SSDs to choose from.

    More bandwidth/lower latency will give far better performance improvements than capacity.

    Thinking you need 32GB cos the number is bigger is stupid.
     
  18. monkeydax macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    #18
    That's being said, I'm pretty sure 4GB is too little for optimal work with some heavy productivity use (e.g. Large numbers of tabs and documents, slides with lots of pictures).
     
  19. jackoatmon macrumors 6502a

    jackoatmon

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    #19
    4 gigs is 0 gigs, 8 gigs is a million gigs.
     
  20. bab5139, Nov 25, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2016

    bab5139 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    #20
    I am a developer and this is how my memory sits just running the basic set of software I need to run. There is one virtual machine running with 4 gig of memory in that. I am not able to run more than 1 virtual machine without sacrificing either the host or the vm. I've been running 16 gigs since 2011, so not being able to upgrade to 32 is worrisome to me because if I was stuck only running 8 from 2011-2016 I would have never been able to do that and would have been forced to upgrade way earlier. That means that this machine will only last a year or so. Battery life doesn't concern me, since the workload that I have will deplete the battery in 3 hours anyway. Not choosing a ddr 4 controller that could support 32 gigs and picking lddr 4 controller is a mistake to me. I highly doubt it represented any significant gains in battery consumption reduction. I want a laptop at this price to handle future needs and 16 gigs doesn't cut it. So hearing that they might not support 32 until 2019 is ridiculous to me.

    However, kabby lake dual cores, I've read elsewhere, already support lpddr 4, so I don't see why the quad cores whether released as kabby lake or coffee lake wouldn't also. (edit. I guess they don't - at least it's not on intel's arc site, Well that sucks!).


    upload_2016-11-25_17-54-53.png
    --- Post Merged, Nov 25, 2016 ---
    Based on this chart I doubt they will need lpddr 4. Most likely they only need the cpu to support ddr 4. The difference in voltage is only 9% (that's assuming that amperage is equivalent and therefore comparable)

    upload_2016-11-25_18-21-57.png
     
  21. Murgatroyd314 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    #21
    Nobody needs more than 640K.

    Seriously, though, I have single programs that will gladly use more than 4GB. If I were to try, it wouldn't be too hard to get them over 16GB. There is no upper bound on how much memory they'll use; more memory just means more complexity in what I can do.
     

Share This Page