New Macbook in 2018?

[EugW]

Fair comment, the keys may be bigger than scissor generation keys too - they are closer together and feel more cramped to me in an Apple Store. If 'full size' was the sole criteria Apple would have dropped the price on the 12" ages ago but they must be going on a coalition of other criteria including - crucially - number of ports and acceptable level of performance of jobs other than the most basic email/word processing. One port isn't enough for some budget users who may be using it as their sole machine and a fan less travel optimised configuration won't be much use for people trying to use Photos or iMovie heavily.

If there's a redesign of the 12" MacBook coming they surely have to go with at least 2 USB-C and up the speed of the ports to USB 3.1 Gen2 10Gbits/s

The keyboards have always been the same size. The designs have changed but the key spacing has not. iBook, PowerBook, MacBook Air, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook white, 12” MacBook, etc. All exactly the same key spacing for the main keys.

There is already a 2 USB-C machine, and it’s called a MacBook Pro. I suspect it won’t be until 2019-2020 before the MacBook gets 2 USB-C ports due to technical issues (chipset and power utilization) and cost.

When the time comes, one way they could save space and cut costs is to remove the headphone jack. Given that they give free BT headphones anyway as part of their back-to-school promotions, the headphone jack is ripe to be killed off. Furthermore, it’s easy to convert the USB-C port to a headphone jack with a <$10 dongle. You can’t convert the headphone jack to a USB-C port with a dongle though. ie. Contrary to popular belief, the MacBook already has two ports, but one is a headphone jack.

Personally though, I’d love to have MagSafe back. I really miss MagSafe, although 2 USB-C ports would be better than 1 USB-C and 1 MagSafe.

 

[sublunar]

The keyboards have always been the same size. The designs have changed but the key spacing has not. iBook, PowerBook, MacBook Air, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook white, 12” MacBook, etc. All exactly the same key spacing for the main keys.

There is already a 2 USB-C machine, and it’s called a MacBook Pro. I suspect it won’t be until 2019-2020 before the MacBook gets 2 USB-C ports due to technical issues (chipset and power utilization) and cost.

When the time comes, one way they could save space and cut costs is to remove the headphone jack. Given that they give free BT headphones anyway as part of their back-to-school promotions, the headphone jack is ripe to be killed off. Furthermore, it’s easy to convert the USB-C port to a headphone jack with a <$10 dongle. You can’t convert the headphone jack to a USB-C port with a dongle though. ie. Contrary to popular belief, the MacBook already has two ports, but one is a headphone jack.

Personally though, I’d love to have MagSafe back. I really miss MagSafe, although 2 USB-C ports would be better than 1 USB-C and 1 MagSafe.

2 USB-C instead of headphone jack is another good idea - one that will get some people moaning for sure though (especially if the 12" MacBook becomes the cheapest Mac laptop). They'd have to launch that before the end of the back to school promotion though. The 12" MacBook is looking at a 4th generation this year so if they don't refresh the form factor this year they have to do it next year. Perhaps they are waiting to reveal the e-Ink keyboard which has been long mooted.

 

[fokmik]

12" Macbook will become the 999$ by reducing the price and start the line with 128 SSD
13" Macbook will start from 1299$ with 256 SSD

 

[Falhófnir]

The problem with calling the new 13” budget model MacBook is right there in your opening sentence. If, as you correctly state, the 12” MacBook is a “premium ultra portable product” then a 13” MacBook should be a slightly larger “premium ultra portable product”.

Why muddy the MacBook lineup? Why change the name at all? They might as well keep calling the new 13” budget model MacBook Air. MBA has a lot of brand equity and people know it as the $999 budget notebook. It’s going to get a better screen and CPU, and be $999 (or ideally $899)—why does that necessitate a name change?

That would also leave space in the premium, ultraportable MacBook lineup for a larger 14/15” model, which I think would be awesome.

I don't want this to send like one of those 'If Steve were here...' posts, but I believe a lot of people in this discussion are thinking in terms of Jobs' neat and tidy ruthlessly pruned lineup, and that simply isn't how Apple are operating at this point. Leaving lingering models rather than killing them off and having lots of SKUs is the new modus operandi - in a way it's nice to have the choice really. For this reason I see - as you say - the Air branding remaining to basically signify the entry level machine, whilst the MacBook would be a more premium experience costing more and could be developed into a lineup rather than a single machine. The Air line can start at $999, with the MacBooks starting at $1,299 for the 12" and $1,499 to $1,599 for a 14 or 15" model.

 

[Ma2k5]

I don't want this to send like one of those 'If Steve were here...' posts, but I believe a lot of people in this discussion are thinking in terms of Jobs' neat and tidy ruthlessly pruned lineup, and that simply isn't how Apple are operating at this point. Leaving lingering models rather than killing them off and having lots of SKUs is the new modus operandi - in a way it's nice to have the choice really. For this reason I see - as you say - the Air branding remaining to basically signify the entry level machine, whilst the MacBook would be a more premium experience costing more and could be developed into a lineup rather than a single machine. The Air line can start at $999, with the MacBooks starting at $1,299 for the 12" and $1,499 to $1,599 for a 14 or 15" model.

Maybe but Steve Jobs also released a MacBook Pro where the heat exhaust was directed at the screen itself .

The main reason the lineup is so messy now in my opinion is because Intels normal CPU schedule that Job’s benefited from, no longer exist. It’s why we don’t have an iGPU version of the MacBook Pro 15 anymore (there was a display version with an Iris Pro 580 under “about this Mac”, evidencing that it was part of Apples plan back in 2016).

 

[Falhófnir]

Maybe but Steve Jobs also released a MacBook Pro where the heat exhaust was directed at the screen itself .

The main reason the lineup is so messy now in my opinion is because Intels normal CPU schedule that Job’s benefited from, no longer exist. It’s why we don’t have an iGPU version of the MacBook Pro 15 anymore (there was a display version with an Iris Pro 580 under “about this Mac”, evidencing that it was part of Apples plan back in 2016).

Sure, I wasn't trying to make a point about whether Steve's way of doing things was better or worse, just that a lot of people seem to still be in that mindset despite the evidence to the contrary - that Apple aren't worried about leaving a few extra offerings on the table where Steve would've killed them dead and moved on.

Yeah that's partly true, I'm sure, Intel seem to be drifting as far as 10nm goes but they're now providing some quite interesting new options with the 4 core U chips and G series so it will be interesting to see how it goes, if Apple hold off on the ARM switch a little longer.

Interesting about the iGPU model that never was - it does get my hopes up that now they've moved the pro line upmarket we might see a less powerful 15" MacBook slotting in underneath eventually...

 

[Ma2k5]

Sure, I wasn't trying to make a point about whether Steve's way of doing things was better or worse, just that a lot of people seem to still be in that mindset despite the evidence to the contrary - that Apple aren't worried about leaving a few extra offerings on the table where Steve would've killed them dead and moved on.

Yeah that's partly true, I'm sure, Intel seem to be drifting as far as 10nm goes but they're now providing some quite interesting new options with the 4 core U chips and G series so it will be interesting to see how it goes, if Apple hold off on the ARM switch a little longer.

Interesting about the iGPU model that never was - it does get my hopes up that now they've moved the pro line upmarket we might see a less powerful 15" MacBook slotting in underneath eventually...

A lot of the issues with the chips has been the availability of a good iGPU - looking ahead it seems intel is sticking to GT2e iGPU’s (intel HD 620 equivalent). The G series was interesting but what is worrying about those is that in the same chassis, it seems to have performed worse than the 7th gen CPU’s with an MX150 - a good review done by notebookcheck on the HP Spectre x360 on this. The power draw is rated at 65w too I think combined which sounds high? Not sure if Apple would use them.

 

[Falhófnir]

A lot of the issues with the chips has been the availability of a good iGPU - looking ahead it seems intel is sticking to GT2e iGPU’s (intel HD 620 equivalent). The G series was interesting but what is worrying about those is that in the same chassis, it seems to have performed worse than the 7th gen CPU’s with an MX150 - a good review done by notebookcheck on the HP Spectre x360 on this. The power draw is rated at 65w too I think combined which sounds high? Not sure if Apple would use them.

I seem to remember the chip in the Dell XPS 15 2 in 1 performs roughly on par with a GTX 1050, which is considerably above the performance of the MX150 - granted it’s been a while since i’ve watched or read reviews of that device... I will have to read the notebook check one

Considering the traditional setup for 15” MBPs is a 45W (indeed 47W when the chips used Iris Pro) CPU and a dedicated 35W GPU I think 65W is about on the money

 

[Ma2k5]

I seem to remember the chip in the Dell XPS 15 2 in 1 performs roughly on par with a GTX 1050, which is considerably above the performance of the MX150 - granted it’s been a while since i’ve watched or read reviews of that device... I will have to read the notebook check one

Considering the traditional setup for 15” MBPs is a 45W (indeed 47W when the chips used Iris Pro) CPU and a dedicated 35W GPU I think 65W is about on the money

I think you might be right, maybe was just an anomaly for the Spectre model as the XPS 9575 seems to have done very well.

There is also 100w variations of the G processors which maybe some of these MacBooks could take advantage of - a Pro 15 with a 100w G processor may actually be preferred over the current 8th gen/Radeon 580 combo. The 65w G processor is probably already comparable to the 580 graphic wise so the 100w version should beat it? With the space saving of not needing a dGPU, additional cooling and battery life could theoretically be achieved. We should get better battery life and more efficient GPU use too - no more dGPU being used when the iGPU would be preferred (have heard some funny stories of basic apps activating the dGPU and killing the battery).

 

[PickUrPoison]

I think you might be right, maybe was just an anomaly for the Spectre model as the XPS 9575 seems to have done very well.

There is also 100w variations of the G processors which maybe some of these MacBooks could take advantage of - a Pro 15 with a 100w G processor may actually be preferred over the current 8th gen/Radeon 580 combo. The 65w G processor is probably already comparable to the 580 graphic wise so the 100w version should beat it? With the space saving of not needing a dGPU, additional cooling and battery life could theoretically be achieved. We should get better battery life and more efficient GPU use too - no more dGPU being used when the iGPU would be preferred (have heard some funny stories of basic apps activating the dGPU and killing the battery).

I like the idea of the G series, there are some benefits to combining the CPU and GPU on package, especially the ability to flex the power budget between the two depending on whether the workload needs more CPU or GPU at any given moment. But I just haven’t seen a good place where they slot into Apple’s lineup at the moment, since the 15” went hexacore.

If Intel does introduce hexacore G series I think Apple could be a buyer for the 15”, though 100W is somewhat over what Apple is currently using, and it would require a slightly thicker, heavier machine to keep the same run times. But they could always downclock the GPU like many notebook manufacturers do, to stay within their 80W target. Or use the 65W part and have longer run times, or go thinner/lighter(!)

Also, though the G series still has an iGPU, the dGPU is powered down when not needed. Like you mention, it should do a good job of only using the dGPU when needed since I assume there’s good on-chip power management that would effectively supervise the iGPU/dGPU.

 

[Ma2k5]

I like the idea of the G series, there are some benefits to combining the CPU and GPU on package, especially the ability to flex the power budget between the two depending on whether the workload needs more CPU or GPU at any given moment. But I just haven’t seen a good place where they slot into Apple’s lineup at the moment, since the 15” went hexacore.

If Intel does introduce hexacore G series I think Apple could be a buyer for the 15”, though 100W is somewhat over what Apple is currently using, and it would require a slightly thicker, heavier machine to keep the same run times. But they could always downclock the GPU like many notebook manufacturers do, to stay within their 80W target. Or use the 65W part and have longer run times, or go thinner/lighter(!)

Also, though the G series still has an iGPU, the dGPU is powered down when not needed. Like you mention, it should do a good job of only using the dGPU when needed since I assume there’s good on-chip power management that would effectively supervise the iGPU/dGPU.

The performance difference between the hex-core and the 100w version of the G-series would be interesting to see - both burst and sustained load. Something tells me it might not be a huge difference (due to thermal constraints) and the battery and heat positives may outweigh any performance advantage the 6 cores have - who knows it might even out perform it on some of the bench marks. The 65w have shown that they can outperform the i7-7700HQ which is quite a feat, I would really love to know how different the 100w variants compare to the 8th gen hex-core.

Also yep I am aware they also have an iGPU, an Intel 630 I believe, I was more thinking hypothetically that it might be able to better decide when it should use the AMD GPU compared to how it currently is, which can be hit and miss. It may also be far more efficient in that when it does use the AMD GPU on say a very basic task when it didn't need to, it may not drain the battery like the RX 580 does when used even at very low power. There may also be GPU switching advantages? All speculative of course.

 

[PickUrPoison]

The performance difference between the hex-core and the 100w version of the G-series would be interesting to see - both burst and sustained load. Something tells me it might not be a huge difference (due to thermal constraints) and the battery and heat positives may outweigh any performance advantage the 6 cores have - who knows it might even out perform it on some of the bench marks. The 65w have shown that they can outperform the i7-7700HQ which is quite a feat, I would really love to know how different the 100w variants compare to the 8th gen hex-core.

Also yep I am aware they also have an iGPU, an Intel 630 I believe, I was more thinking hypothetically that it might be able to better decide when it should use the AMD GPU compared to how it currently is, which can be hit and miss. It may also be far more efficient in that when it does use the AMD GPU on say a very basic task when it didn't need to, it may not drain the battery like the RX 580 does when used even at very low power. There may also be GPU switching advantages? All speculative of course.

How much better performance you’ll really have with six vs four cores is of course dependent on the particular workload, but if nothing else there’s an optics problem; I don’t see Apple going back to quads in the 15” lineup. So if Apple is to use a G series part in the 15”, I think Intel will have to release hexa-core CPUs. No technical reason they couldn’t.

 

[Ma2k5]

How much better performance you’ll really have with six vs four cores is of course dependent on the particular workload, but if nothing else there’s an optics problem; I don’t see Apple going back to quads in the 15” lineup. So if Apple is to use a G series part in the 15”, I think Intel will have to release hexa-core CPUs. No technical reason they couldn’t.

Thinking about it more, with Intel confirmed as jumping into the discrete GPU market, the partnership with AMD and these 'G' processors might be short lived anyway? Then again, we have no idea when those Intel GPU's will start to show up.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Thinking about it more, with Intel confirmed as jumping into the discrete GPU market, the partnership with AMD and these 'G' processors might be short lived anyway? Then again, we have no idea when those Intel GPU's will start to show up.

Good point, the G series must have been in the works well before Intel hired Raja. Intel says 2020 and normally I’d take that with a grain of salt but in this case I think it’s a reasonable timeframe.

 

[fokmik]

It seems we will have a 2018 Macbook, with touchID also

 

[VR46]

It seems we will have a 2018 Macbook, with touchID also

And no touch bar, hoorah.

Fingers crossed for a reveal tomorrow rather than in October.

 

[Dave245]

And no touch bar, hoorah.

Fingers crossed for a reveal tomorrow rather than in October.

I would love for them to announce everything tomorrow, i'm waiting on the new MacBook announcement

Apple Watch Series 4 announcement
iPhone - 3 versions announced, Airpower and AirPods with "Hey Siri" also announced
iPad Pro's - new design
New 13" low cost MacBook
New Mac Mini

Apple could announce everything at one event, at last years WWDC they did reveal a LOT of product updates including iPad Pro's, Mac's (including the reveal of the iMac Pro) and HomePod. That's not mentioning all the software and features that were announced, so it's totally doable for tomorrow.

I think it all comes down to what Apple wants to do, sometimes they prefer to hold multiple keynotes while other times they don't, the last October keynote was in 2016 for the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar.

 

[RegularGuy09]

My realistic hopes :

-$999 starting price
-13"
-Couple of USB C ports
-Fixed Keyboard
-Moderately powerful

I'm resigned to losing things like magsafe and the old keyboard, to gain things like a retina display and touch id. This should be the bare minimum we should expect from Apple. Let it be the industry standard and best in its class like the MacBook Air was say around 2014. Let this be a proper successor to that.

 

[case2001]

12" Macbook will become the 999$ by reducing the price and start the line with 128 SSD
13" Macbook will start from 1299$ with 256 SSD

I hope you are correct. I like the 12" MacBook but it is a little cramped. I believe a 999.99 12" MacBook would sell really well. I would think the average user 128 would be fine with iCloud.

 

[EugW]

Some more Amber Lake Y benchmarks are out there now, in the form of Google Nocturne Geekbenches. Note though I don't think these can be directly compared to MacBook benchmarks, since they may be using standard TDP. MacBooks use TDP up for higher power utilization. I present them though because it appears the i7 may be throttling, with the i5 doing the best.

Celeron 3965Y: 3476/2012
m3-8100Y: 7264/3885
i5-8200Y: 8164/3909
i7-8500Y: 8064/3764

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=nocturne

Note though that Apple A12 Bionic gets way higher than what we would expect for Amber Lake even with TDP up, since A12 gets around 11500/4800.

BTW, AnandTech has just released its iPhone XS review, and they did a full SPEC2006 bench:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-review-unveiling-the-silicon-secrets/4

What is quite astonishing, is just how close Apple’s A11 and A12 are to current desktop CPUs. I haven’t had the opportunity to run things in a more comparable manner, but taking our server editor, Johan De Gelas’ recent figures from earlier this summer, we see that the A12 outperforms a Skylake CPU. Of course there’s compiler considerations and various frequency concerns to take into account, but still we’re now talking about very small margins until Apple’s mobile SoCs outperform the fastest desktop CPUs in terms of ST performance. It will be interesting to get more accurate figures on this topic later on in the coming months.

Note that for the purposes of this test, they ran external cooling on the iPhone, as they wanted to test the chip, not just the phone. Still, with this kind of performance, it does tell you that an A12 MacBook is more than feasible.

 

[Dave245]

Some more Amber Lake Y benchmarks are out there now, in the form of Google Nocturne Geekbenches. Note though I don't think these can be directly compared to MacBook benchmarks, since they may be using standard TDP. MacBooks use TDP up for higher power utilization. I present them though because it appears the i7 may be throttling, with the i5 doing the best.

Celeron 3965Y: 3476/2012
m3-8100Y: 7264/3885
i5-8200Y: 8164/3909
i7-8500Y: 8064/3764

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=nocturne

Note though that Apple A12 Bionic gets way higher than what we would expect for Amber Lake even with TDP up, since A12 gets around 11500/4800.

BTW, AnandTech has just released its iPhone XS review, and they did a full SPEC2006 bench:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-review-unveiling-the-silicon-secrets/4

What is quite astonishing, is just how close Apple’s A11 and A12 are to current desktop CPUs. I haven’t had the opportunity to run things in a more comparable manner, but taking our server editor, Johan De Gelas’ recent figures from earlier this summer, we see that the A12 outperforms a Skylake CPU. Of course there’s compiler considerations and various frequency concerns to take into account, but still we’re now talking about very small margins until Apple’s mobile SoCs outperform the fastest desktop CPUs in terms of ST performance. It will be interesting to get more accurate figures on this topic later on in the coming months.

Note that for the purposes of this test, they ran external cooling on the iPhone, as they wanted to test the chip, not just the phone. Still, with this kind of performance, it does tell you that an A12 MacBook is more than feasible.

It seems that with each passing year Apple are getting closer and closer to building a A12 (or whatever number) Mac using their own custom chips, I think it’s only s matter of time before they do the question is when? It would be very interesting to see it next year perhaps alongside the full rollout of Marzipan.

 

[HappyIntro]

I think the sheer size of the (software) engineering effort to get MacOS onto a different platform makes the effort impossible to conceal, meaning if Apple was truly trying to change CPU platforms, we'd have to have heard about it by now. There would have to be hundreds of employees focused on that project, prototypes being built, etc., if they were actually serious about switching from intel to A-series chips any time soon. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[EugW]

I think the sheer size of the (software) engineering effort to get MacOS onto a different platform makes the effort impossible to conceal, meaning if Apple was truly trying to change CPU platforms, we'd have to have heard about it by now. There would have to be hundreds of employees focused on that project, prototypes being built, etc., if they were actually serious about switching from intel to A-series chips any time soon. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

That's what people said about Apple switching from PowerPC to Intel.

And then Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel.

The funny part of it was Steve Jobs actually gave us a massive hint. In one of Apple's keynotes, Steve Jobs was demonstrating a new feature in Mac OS X accessing courier delivery information (Dashboard or something?). It showed a package being delivered to Apple.

What people didn't realize at the time was that it was a real package, delivered from Intel to Apple. At that point, Apple hadn't announced Intel Macs yet.

 

[HappyIntro]

That's funny, I guess my memory is fuzzy. I remember a big announcement that Apple was switching from PowerPC to Intel, along with a timeline for the first machines to start showing up and lots of reassurances of significant continued support for legacy PPC machines. E.g., Apple didn't just switch by showing up at an event with intel machines - if Apple is indeed porting MacOS to an A-series architecture, they would probably announce it way before any machines are available, give all developers a timeline and a bunch of tools to help them get their apps up and running and we'd get to wait 12 to 18 months for real hardware.

There seems to be speculation that Apple can just show up at the next event with MacOS laptop running on an A12. That doesn't seem possible to me. But I love surprises...

EDIT: Not possible for Apple to show up at an event with A-series laptops ready for sale - of course they could show us a prototype as part of an official announcement of their efforts.

 

[Falhófnir]

I think the sheer size of the (software) engineering effort to get MacOS onto a different platform makes the effort impossible to conceal, meaning if Apple was truly trying to change CPU platforms, we'd have to have heard about it by now. There would have to be hundreds of employees focused on that project, prototypes being built, etc., if they were actually serious about switching from intel to A-series chips any time soon. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Watch the keynote where the intel switch is announced - they'd basically been making MacOS for intel in parallel for 5-6 iterations before the switch. Considering iOS uses many of the same underlying technologies, but on ARM, I find it inconceivable they haven't been tinkering with MacOS on ARM for at least as long as iOS has existed. All things considered they are probably an order of magnitude better placed to switch to ARM today than they were to switch to intel 15 years ago.