New Macbook in 2018?

[EugW]

This article not only introduces Comet Lake U for the MacBook Pro, but also suggests that Amber Lake Y for the 2018 MacBook would get USB 3.1 Gen 2 10 Mbps.

https://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/column/ubiq/1126720.html

If true, that means it could conceivably also get Thunderbolt 3.

 

[navaira]

Comet Lake U

Amber Lake Y

Good Gods, Intel's naming department. Go see a therapist.

 

[ksec]

If true, that means it could conceivably also get Thunderbolt 3.

That are fundamentally not related. Not sure why you are getting that idea.

 

[EugW]

That are fundamentally not related. Not sure why you are getting that idea.

Because the CNL chipset that supposedly adds Gen 2 10 Gbps also adds Thunderbolt 3. They were supposedly to arrive together.

 

[bill-p]

Nope.

That one I linked specifically references Ice Lake Y, which supports LPDDR4x.

EDIT:

To clarify: Y series is what is in the MacBooks, and the reference is about ICL-Y, which is Ice Lake Y. Furthermore, the MacBooks and MacBook Pros only use low power DDR, which in the case of the current (and likely the 2018 models), is LPDDR3, which maxes out at 16 GB. ICL-Y is spec'd to work with LPDDR4x, which can support 32 GB. I don't expect the 2019 MacBook to support 32 GB, because it's a MacBook, but the chipset can support it.

The chip you linked is an Atom that Apple never uses, and it's a server SoC that is already shipping. Plus it does not use low power RAM.

Well, the naming is confusing enough that it could be anything but... duly noted that it's highly likely the Intel Core Y series chips that we're waiting for.

Personally, at this point in the game, I don't think it matters much since I've found my 2017 MacBook can surprisingly deal with a lot of the things I throw at it and handled it all like a champ, so I haven't found much interest in purchasing a new 2018 MacBook even if it has Thunderbolt 3.

Maybe for gaming with an external GPU? But I'd use a dedicated gaming console for that. Cheaper and gets the job done.

The 2017 MacBook with the latest High Sierra update has been very good at handling my 4K display, by the way. Even when scaling is used. I've been resisting Mojave but maybe I'll break down and load it up this weekend to see...

 

[EugW]

Well, the naming is confusing enough that it could be anything but... duly noted that it's highly likely the Intel Core Y series chips that we're waiting for.

Personally, at this point in the game, I don't think it matters much since I've found my 2017 MacBook can surprisingly deal with a lot of the things I throw at it and handled it all like a champ, so I haven't found much interest in purchasing a new 2018 MacBook even if it has Thunderbolt 3.

Maybe for gaming with an external GPU? But I'd use a dedicated gaming console for that. Cheaper and gets the job done.

The 2017 MacBook with the latest High Sierra update has been very good at handling my 4K display, by the way. Even when scaling is used. I've been resisting Mojave but maybe I'll break down and load it up this weekend to see...

I’d keep my 2017 too but the biggest advantages of getting Thunderbolt are wider external monitor support (if the iGPU can handle it, and a much better selection of hubs available.

 

[bill-p]

Well, current MacBooks support up to one 4K display concurrently with the internal display, and I think that's good enough. There are not too many displays currently in the market that go past 4K.

Better hub selection is indeed quite convenient to have, but even then, there are not that many either. USB-C is just too young an interface.

 

[ksec]

Because the CNL chipset that supposedly adds Gen 2 10 Gbps also adds Thunderbolt 3. They were supposedly to arrive together.

Sorry still not making any sense to me. Where did it said CNL chipset gets Thunderbolt 3?

 

[EugW]

Sorry still not making any sense to me. Where did it said CNL chipset gets Thunderbolt 3?

Sorry, my bad. The original leak suggested Ice Lake Y to get it.

Anyhoo, what I originally had read was that most people were expecting Gen 2 10 Mbps USB-C to arrive at the same time as Thunderbolt 3, as in they wouldn't bother updating the USB-C spec until the chipset update with Thunderbolt 3.

But if Amber Lake Y were to get USB-C Gen 2 10 Mbps without Thunderbolt 3, that would disprove that theory.

I guess 10 Mbps USB-C is better than nothing, but IMO the key update is to get Thunderbolt 3.

 

[dgdosen]

Sorry, my bad. The original leak suggested Ice Lake Y to get it.

Anyhoo, what I originally had read was that most people were expecting Gen 2 10 Mbps USB-C to arrive at the same time as Thunderbolt 3, as in they wouldn't bother updating the USB-C spec until the chipset update with Thunderbolt 3.

But if Amber Lake Y were to get USB-C Gen 2 10 Mbps without Thunderbolt 3, that would disprove that theory.

I guess 10 Mbps USB-C is better than nothing, but IMO the key update is to get Thunderbolt 3.

So what is Amber Lake bringing to the table? 10-ish% perf gains?

 

[navaira]

Non-Lake – biggest Dutch online stores (I like checking for open box deals) are out of most models of retina MB. Might be accidental, of course, but I've never seen that before. Not that I can imagine Apple suddenly updating Macbooks mid-June... or is this a thing that happened before?

 

[EugW]

Non-Lake – biggest Dutch online stores (I like checking for open box deals) are out of most models of retina MB. Might be accidental, of course, but I've never seen that before. Not that I can imagine Apple suddenly updating Macbooks mid-June... or is this a thing that happened before?

Lots of stock here in Canada.

 

[ksec]

So what is Amber Lake bringing to the table? 10-ish% perf gains?

Nothing. Integrated 802.11ac WiFi ( I doubt they will give 802.11ax ), Newer USB Spec. Both are cost cutting measures for OEM. So While Intel's CPU and PCH are priced the same as previous generation, it saves OEM cost by not having to buy separate WiFi and USB controller.

Sorry, my bad. The original leak suggested Ice Lake Y to get it.

Anyhoo, what I originally had read was that most people were expecting Gen 2 10 Mbps USB-C to arrive at the same time as Thunderbolt 3, as in they wouldn't bother updating the USB-C spec until the chipset update with Thunderbolt 3.

But if Amber Lake Y were to get USB-C Gen 2 10 Mbps without Thunderbolt 3, that would disprove that theory.

I guess 10 Mbps USB-C is better than nothing, but IMO the key update is to get Thunderbolt 3.

Ok, things are getting a little out of hand here.
It is 10Gbps, Type-C is a connector spec, Gen 2 is only available on USB 3.1 or 3.2.

At the moment it is a little silly with USB 10Gbps because it is still going through the PCH, which only has 8Gbps bandwidth to the CPU. But 99% of the time you are not likely to be bottlenecked by it.

Now Thunderbolt. The reason I said it doesn't make sense is because Thunderbolt 3 is 40Gbps, assuming you want to use it as a DisplayPort as such. Which means you cant use it on a PCH, when it is already severely limited in bandwidth. However Cannonlake doesn't support Thunderbolt on its CPU, as doing so requires lot of changes, and Cannonlake is / was suppose to be Intel's 10nm testing / playground. Icelake is slightly redesigned and will get some IPC improvements, better GPU along with TB3.

But we are still looking at mid to late 2019.....

 

[EugW]

Ok, things are getting a little out of hand here.
It is 10Gbps, Type-C is a connector spec, Gen 2 is only available on USB 3.1 or 3.2.

Yes, Gbps. Sorry for the typo.

True that USB-C is the connector, although in this context we're always talking about at least USB 3.1 (esp. on Macs).

At the moment it is a little silly with USB 10Gbps because it is still going through the PCH, which only has 8Gbps bandwidth to the CPU. But 99% of the time you are not likely to be bottlenecked by it.

The main problem is trying to run everything through a single USB port. For example, I have USB C SSD that is limited to 5 Gbps. That's fine for one drive alone but if you want to run anything else at the same time, like two drives, then that's a problem.

Mind you, I'd be happier with two independent 5 Gbps ports than a single 10 Gbps port.

Now Thunderbolt. The reason I said it doesn't make sense is because Thunderbolt 3 is 40Gbps, assuming you want to use it as a DisplayPort as such. Which means you cant use it on a PCH, when it is already severely limited in bandwidth. However Cannonlake doesn't support Thunderbolt on its CPU, as doing so requires lot of changes, and Cannonlake is / was suppose to be Intel's 10nm testing / playground. Icelake is slightly redesigned and will get some IPC improvements, better GPU along with TB3.

But we are still looking at mid to late 2019.....

Yes. I was confused by the new Amber Lake. Too many lakes.

Then again, it makes my Kaby Lake Y purchase in 2017 seem like a smarter decision than I originally was thinking.

 

[Neru]

I'm very disappointed Apple didn't introduce a new Macbook at the WWDC.

I am currently waiting for a new one to be released in order to replace my old 2011 MacBook air. It is dying, the first line of the keyboard (AZERTY in France, not QWERTY) is working whenever it wants. I like the small factor of the MBMB a, obviously, the weight. If they release a 14", it would be perfect.

To be honest, I would really appreciate that the keyboard problems of both the MacBook and the MacBook pro will be resolved whenever they are released because I don't want to buy an expensive machine with poorly designed keyboard where a key can be disabled by dust.

I know that not everyone has the problem and that maybe a vast majority of users is very happy with their machines. But the different class actions prove that there is a serious problem and I hope Apple will take care of it.

So, for the moment, I'm still using my MBA until next October.

 

[iPodClassic1]

(Things I want in the next MacBook: no or smaller bezels, 500 nits and color matching the pro screen, another usb c port and make em thunderbolt 3. that would be awesome, sure a better camera and FaceID or touchID would be great, but those don't matter as much to me.)

 

[Lesser Evets]

Not much detail out there but Amber Lake likely is/has:

Double-digit performance increase over Kaby Lake Y. So, I'm thinking maybe 10-15% increase.
14 nm (but a more advanced 14 nm than Kaby Lake)
2 core 4 threads (just like Kaby Lake)
? 4.5 Watts (just like Kaby Lake)
? No LPDDR4 support (just like Kaby Lake)
? No Thunderbolt 3 support (just like Kaby Lake)
? No USB-C Gen 2 10 Mbps support (just like Kaby Lake)

Still waiting on specs. Amber Lake is purportedly launching in AUGUST. Yep, purportedly. That would mean a MacBook could launch in August, but let's be honest: Apple will launch in September if lucky, October likely.

My hopes: LPDDR4 support, USB-C Gen-2 support.

And then I want a MacBook with a high-end NVMe solid-state drive boosted by the LPDDR4 and the MacBook will scream.

That with a 13" screen / Amber Lake speeds / better keyboard will make the MacBook a desktop-replacer for my uses.

 

[EugW]

And then I want a MacBook with a high-end NVMe solid-state drive boosted by the LPDDR4 and the MacBook will scream.

Not sure what benefit that would give you. The MacBook already has a very fast SSD, and the benefit from LPDDR4 will be marginal performance-wise. It’s not as if Apple will likely release a 32 GB MacBook this year even if it somehow got LPDDR4x.

 

[ksec]

and the benefit from LPDDR4

32GB ram, you don't need LPDDR4x for that.

 

[EugW]

32GB ram, you don't need LPDDR4x for that.

As mentioned in my original post, my point was that regardless if 32 GB is supported by the tech or not, the MacBook won’t get it any time soon.

When that feature lands, it will be a differentiating feature initially restricted to the MacBook Pro.

 

[Dave245]

As mentioned in my original post, my point was that regardless if 32 GB is supported by the tech or not, the MacBook won’t get it any time soon.

When that feature lands, it will be a differentiating feature initially restricted to the MacBook Pro.

Bit of a random question but do you think 8GB is enough on modern Mac’s? or is the 16GB option the best for most people?

 

[EugW]

Bit of a random question but do you think 8GB is enough on modern Mac’s? or is the 16GB option the best for most people?

8 GB for most people. 16 GB for some people. 32 GB for some people. 64 GB for a few people.

I have 16 GB in my MacBook and 24 GB in my iMac.

 

[Dave245]

8 GB for most people. 16 GB for some people. 32 GB for some people. 64 GB for a few people.

I have 16 GB in my MacBook and 24 GB in my iMac.

I was just debating it for my next upgrade. I currently have 16GB in my 2012 iMac and I’m not sure that it even gets used to the full 16GB.

 

[EugW]

I was just debating it for my next upgrade. I currently have 16GB in my 2012 iMac and I’m not sure that it even gets used to the full 16GB.

The question should not be whether or not you need 16 GB. The question should be if you need more than 8, for the life of the machine.

I figure I usually would be fine with 8 or even 6 GB when at home, since I never do any heavy lifting at home on my MacBook. However, occasionally when traveling, I can benefit from a bit more than 8. I figured that 12 GB would be sufficient for my usage for a good 5 years with that laptop, but since I can't get 12, I got 16.

 

[PickUrPoison]

As mentioned in my original post, my point was that regardless if 32 GB is supported by the tech or not, the MacBook won’t get it any time soon.

When that feature lands, it will be a differentiating feature initially restricted to the MacBook Pro.

Couldn’t disagree more. If Apple updates the MacBook with a CPU that supports 32GB of RAM, they’ll offer the 32GB capacity immediately upon release, even if MBP won’t get 32GB for another year.

Apple’s not scared that MBP power users will abandon an 80W CPU/GPU platform for a 5W platform. Other differentiating factors are 4 x 40Gb TB3 ports vs. a single 5 Gb USB 3.1 port, and a 15” screen vs. 12” screen. The two platforms aren’t even remotely interchangeable and are not substitutes to one another.

And if someone wants to move from 13” 16GB MBP to 12” 32GB MacBook, Apple would be happy to make the extra profit. They aren’t afraid of any potential cannibalization, they price so they’ll make their margin either way. They’d be thrilled to sell a boatload of 32GB MacBooks.

But realistically, not that many users who can get by on a 5W CPU/GPU platform would find 32GB all that advantageous. However, some buyers always want the top of the line—and Apple will be only to happy to charge them Apple RAM prices for 32GB.