I'm inclined to side with the guy defending 16gb. There's not a whole lot of reason for 32GB right now. I suppose if you were video editing 4K on Premier and Final Cut at the same time (which would never happen anyway) but even then you'd max out the capabilities of your graphics card. Are you suggesting gaming? I still say video ram is more important for improved performance beyond what 16 would deliver. Where Apple screwed up on the new laptops is not internals, per se. They are plenty comparable with what Kaby Lake can offer minus a little less power efficiency. Where they messed up is (you guessed it/dead horse): PORTS!
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.
New 15-Inch MacBook Pro With Kaby Lake and 32GB of Desktop-Class RAM Coming Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm inclined to side with the guy defending 16gb. There's not a whole lot of reason for 32GB right now. I suppose if you were video editing 4K on Premier and Final Cut at the same time (which would never happen anyway) but even then you'd max out the capabilities of your graphics card. Are you suggesting gaming? I still say video ram is more important for improved performance beyond what 16 would deliver. Where Apple screwed up on the new laptops is not internals, per se. They are plenty comparable with what Kaby Lake can offer minus a little less power efficiency. Where they messed up is (you guessed it/dead horse): PORTS!
"You're holding it wrong!"
Or in this case using the wrong tool for the job. You need a workstation for this type of work, it's not meant to be done on a laptop. I don't want to lug around a 6lb monster because .005% of users need desktop RAM.
I'd like a MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM. Not because I need that much today. (Frankly, I don't think I even use the 16GB I have.) But I was hoping the machine I just got was my 3 - 4 year machine. It needs to be a bit more future-proofed than it currently is. (Although the obscene price of the upgrade to 1TB of storage, which I'd also want in a machine meant to last that long was an issue. I suspect that'll come down a few hundred on the next refresh.)
I don't know if any of it matters. The nice thing about my Apple laptops historically is that they sell quickly and hold their value nicely so when an expensive machine replaces an expensive machine, it's not that hard on the wallet. (Heck, I sold my last MBP for $100 less than I paid for it and that was after 13 months of use.)
I don't know if any of it matters. The nice thing about my Apple laptops historically is that they sell quickly and hold their value nicely so when an expensive machine replaces an expensive machine, it's not that hard on the wallet. (Heck, I sold my last MBP for $100 less than I paid for it and that was after 13 months of use.)
And the new internal data will show that less than 5% of the owners of the 2016 MacBook Pro can use anything they have without an adapter!
I agree with the ports, but totally disagree with you about the RAM.
16 GB is not a lot for a pro machine. A pro, desktop from 11 years ago can utilize 32GB of RAM, if should be expected to be at least upgradable to 32GB. But it is soldered, so no chance on upgrading it down the road a few years.
"You're holding it wrong!"
Or in this case using the wrong tool for the job. You need a workstation for this type of work, it's not meant to be done on a laptop. I don't want to lug around a 6lb monster because .005% of users need desktop RAM.
I hate to be rude and interject, but...
Exactly what macOS-powered workstation are you talking about?
They said "desktop class ram". My guess is it has the same meaning as the iPhone having a desktop class CPU, meaning "not in any way shape and form except to our marketing department after they got ahold of the really good drugs".
Graphics professionals can easily chew up that RAM. After Effects, for example, a common use of Pro Macs. After loading the OS, After Effects, and typically several other apps into memory, let's say you have 24 MB available for data (from 32). You also want a little headroom, you definitely don't want to be bumping up against the RAM limit, especially while rendering, as that can drastically increase render times.
If you're processing uncompressed 4K at 32 bits per channel, that's about 133 MB per frame. That only gives you 180 frames of preview cache. At 60 fps, that's 3 seconds, which...sucks. That's pretty much useless. And that's not even including pre-comp cacheing, which you will typically have quite a lot of, using even more RAM.
Now, let's take a less extreme case, by today's standards. Let's say you're processing 2K (1920x1080) at 30 frames per second (or maybe 4K, previewing at only 1/2 res), at only 8 bit per channel color. This is about the lowest-end specs you'd expect to work with today. Now you're only at about 8.3 MB per frame, which lets you cache about 2,900 frames. At 30 fps, that's still only less than 100 seconds of preview. Still not great and again, not including cacheing of any pre-comps.
Last edited:
The answer should be Mac Pro...
...but, the iMac is "the best desktop in the world"! /s
I'm just referring to what people are complaining about here...some that shelled out a lot of money for a lesser than magical iteration will be upset, especially if it's a "good product at a reasonable price."
I'd be pretty p**sed if I'd waited and forked out for a new redesigned MacBook Pro, overpriced as it is for just 16GB RAM, then they release an option for 32GB later in the year because they couldn't be bothered to on launch? Apple's screwing of customers knows no bounds.
Edit: Please stop replying. I'm bored of reading responses now.
Sounds similar to how when I got my retina macbook pro back in 2012 right after Christmas for $2200 (13inch, 512gb ssd, 8gb ram, i7 2.9ghz), and then that february, it dropped to like $1600-$1700.
Agree. This is the only way to think when buying technology, if not, you will never be satisfied and always feel, " I should have waited".
..and never buy anything.
Hitting 80% means the Mac may already be swapping.
Depending on the data being accessed, I've seen disk swapping start at the 50% mark.
Even w/ 32GB I see some minor swapping here-and-there w/ lite work.
My 2011 MBP 15" Hi-Res w/ 16GB, 1TB, i7, 1GB GFX has held up well.
Works great for general purpose use.
As an aside, I looked around a couple floors/offices...
...most general office Dell desktops & iMacs have at least 16GB of RAM, at least here in SF.
I couldn't find a single desktop w/ less then 16GB.
The only device I found was a series of 13" Dell laptops for a marketing team w/ only 4GB!!!!
Since the marketing team is winning over the engineering team at
,perhaps they don't appreciate the need for RAM.
Last edited:
Yup, it felt like the last update was "thrown together" at the last minute. Now this will be the REAL update.
You lose that right when you post. If you don't like responses, delete your post.
There are a lot of us that just need to get crap done. I have a buddy who works in movies and often needs to dump and view 6K/8K footage from his RED rigs out in the field and wouldn't mind if his laptop weighed as much as it did when he was first starting out 8-9 years ago. These guys are hauling around bulky camera rigs, boom mics, set pieces, lighting stands, chroma pulldowns. I really doubt they're gonna care if their laptop weighs a few pounds extra, lol. As for me, my first laptop in college was a 9lb 17" Dell Inspiron monster that I took to my classes before getting a more powerful 15" MacBook Pro. The problem today is that Apple continues to make things thinner at the sake of them actually being faster which is what Pros need the most. Time is money. I can always buy a bigger bag—I can't get back the time waiting for Lightroom to export or what have you.
Anyway, I don't understand why 32GB is such a problem. I thought DDR4 support was coming in the next MBP, which is a lot more power efficient? Newer display technologies can also help reduce power needs (maybe mLED will finally debut?), alongside improvements in the new CPU and GPUs. Furthermore, this is the year they're supposed to roll out the new lithium batteries—the ones that only take a little effort to retrofit onto existing factory lines and double battery capacity per volume over current gen tech. I think there are a lot of things coming together that can make this thing possible without adding a ton of weight.
Kaby Lake is not the solution to what plagues the MacBook, but Cannonlake (or more likely its successor) might be able to squeak in a decent processor. It also needs a price-cut.
A Kaby Lake MacBook Pro is going to be really sweet. With the improved graphics and battery life and the possiblility of 32GB in 15 inch, it will finally be what a lot of us have been asking for.
A Kaby Lake MacBook Pro is going to be really sweet. With the improved graphics and battery life and the possiblility of 32GB in 15 inch, it will finally be what a lot of us have been asking for.
I'd like to see new Macbooks offered without touchbars. I have a feeling laptops with those included might become Mac Edsels.
I'm getting more than a little tired of headlines that state things as fact when (once you read the story) it is actually just speculation from an analyst who (in this case) has committed a major technical error. Kaby Lake does not support more than 16GB of the kind of RAM used in the MacBook Pro. So, short of Apple producing a dual-processor version of the MacBook Pro (have a guess on the pricetag of THAT), this flat-out ain't gonna happen. MR needs to work on making more accurate headlines, because (it has become clear) a lot of their readers don't go much beyond that, and take it as confirmed fact.
