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 MacBook Pros Max Out at 16GB RAM Due to Battery Life Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A lot of folks I know, myself included use a MacBook Pro Retina as main computer and workstation. Which in many cases it is great at. I have two big displays connected to mine and in many cases the lid shut.
I would never use it (The MBP) without it plugged into power. At least not when working professionally with Images and videos... Dial up FCPx or Logic Pro and edit away and the Battery will be gone in less than 45 minutes.
Using this 2016 MacBook Pro as a Pro Workstation for Images and Video without the cord plugged is just not something I see happening... As it would not last very long. So given the fact that the power is plugged in, it doesnt matter if the power consumption is greater... Therefor, Schiller again proves that he has no idea about how and who uses the computer Apple builds..
I haven been owning Apple Laptops since 17 years. Using then Professionally for Image/Video/Coding. I have never ONCE been able to get the battery life Apple claims possible. Never. I dont know by what standard they measure that power consumption... maybe reading a text edit document at the lowest brightness possible.
They aim this product at the professional Video/Imaging folks but quote battery life only achievable by low-light reading in TextEdit.. This is a joke and always has been. Mores the pity that they dont quit this charade.
Anyone REALLY in need of such a device would rather 32GB of Ram than an 2 hours of batt. instead of 1 - which is MAX when hitting the Laptop with what is was BUILT TO DO !
PS - I am pretty sure that the Event had the MBPs plugged into power.... Why is that ??? The event only lasts for 1.20 minutes and according to phil the MBP has 6-10 hours of life.... Even when they have the opportunity to prove it they dont. Because they know it would fall to its knees. Both graphically and battery wise... Imagine it dying down after 45 minutes of hard use (Which it WILL) during the presentation....
I would never use it (The MBP) without it plugged into power. At least not when working professionally with Images and videos... Dial up FCPx or Logic Pro and edit away and the Battery will be gone in less than 45 minutes.
Using this 2016 MacBook Pro as a Pro Workstation for Images and Video without the cord plugged is just not something I see happening... As it would not last very long. So given the fact that the power is plugged in, it doesnt matter if the power consumption is greater... Therefor, Schiller again proves that he has no idea about how and who uses the computer Apple builds..
I haven been owning Apple Laptops since 17 years. Using then Professionally for Image/Video/Coding. I have never ONCE been able to get the battery life Apple claims possible. Never. I dont know by what standard they measure that power consumption... maybe reading a text edit document at the lowest brightness possible.
They aim this product at the professional Video/Imaging folks but quote battery life only achievable by low-light reading in TextEdit.. This is a joke and always has been. Mores the pity that they dont quit this charade.
Anyone REALLY in need of such a device would rather 32GB of Ram than an 2 hours of batt. instead of 1 - which is MAX when hitting the Laptop with what is was BUILT TO DO !
PS - I am pretty sure that the Event had the MBPs plugged into power.... Why is that ??? The event only lasts for 1.20 minutes and according to phil the MBP has 6-10 hours of life.... Even when they have the opportunity to prove it they dont. Because they know it would fall to its knees. Both graphically and battery wise... Imagine it dying down after 45 minutes of hard use (Which it WILL) during the presentation....
Last edited:
OS X doesn't need it you are right, but apps do! You do run applications?
[doublepost=1477700517][/doublepost]
You've got that wrong. Dell and HP don't offer 32GB RAM... They offer 64GB.
[doublepost=1477700613][/doublepost]
You've got that wrong mate, Dell and HP don't offer 128GB RAM..., they do 2TB on their desktop workstations!
Heh if they only see how much memory leaks safatu and even chrome has when opening a crapload of web browsers...
Despite featuring more energy efficient Skylake processors, faster SSDs, better GPUs, and new thermal architecture, Apple's revamped MacBook Pros continue to max out at 16GB RAM.
Many customers have been wondering why Apple didn't bump up the maximum RAM to 32GB, including MacRumors reader David, who emailed Apple to ask and got an explanation from marketing chief Phil Schiller. According to Schiller, more than 16GB RAM would consume too much power and have a negative impact on battery life.
While most average customers likely couldn't utilize 32GB RAM, the MacBook Pro is aimed at professionals who need more computing power and who may occasionally feel the constraints of being limited to 16GB RAM. There will undoubtedly be customers who are disappointed that Apple has not offered a choice between better performance and battery life.
For the 2016 MacBook Pro, Apple was able to reach "all-day battery life," which equates to 10 hours of wireless web use or iTunes movie playback. That's an hour improvement over the previous generation in the 15-inch machine, and a small step back in the 13-inch machine.
While none of Apple's portable machines offer more than 16GB RAM, 32GB of RAM is a high-end custom upgrade option in the 27-inch iMac.
Article Link: New MacBook Pros Max Out at 16GB RAM Due to Battery Life Concerns
There are 16Gig mobile chip format, memory modules?
That's the issue, they don't exist.
We can safely assume that at some point during development Apple engineers carefully explained why 16GB RAM is insufficient for a pro machine and in response Ive told them to pound sand while Tim Cook timidly acquiesced to him.
Because it would have been simple to reach the desired battery life with 32 or even 64GB RAM by making the battery a mm or two thicker.
Because it would have been simple to reach the desired battery life with 32 or even 64GB RAM by making the battery a mm or two thicker.
16GB seems like a bare minimum even just running a few basic apps. My nearly 3 year old iMac 5K almost always uses half of the installed 32GB without even having pro apps like photoshop running. So basically, Apple doesn't make a Pro laptop. Remind me again why these don't start at $399 and max out at $1499?
You are right. But those of us looking at the 15" MacBook Pro are disappointed at the specs and we are the intended market for that machine. Apple would make a lot of Pros very happy by making a larger pro machine, with decent key travel, room for 2 SSD's, 64GB RAM, a matte screen option and the return of the Ethernet port! To retards that spend their days working from a chair in Starbucks this would seem totally uncool and a backwards step. To those of us that work for a living it would be long over-due.
If only those who needed Macs were the ones who bought Macs then Apple's computer business would go belly up within 6 months.
Cockwomble!
[doublepost=1477701098][/doublepost]
Of course it is! It's not like it's an expensive pro machine with flexible hardware options, it's an ultra-expensive consumer appliance.
[doublepost=1477701288][/doublepost]
I have the XPS 15, with 32GB RAM, 4K screen and 1.5TB SSD. I went for the extra disk over battery life. The battery life sucks, but I knew this and it was my choice - i.e. I had a choice. Overall very impressed with the machine. The trackpad isn't as nice as Apples, but the machine overall is a joy to use, light, well made and cost half what I would have spent on a MacBook Pro.
[doublepost=1477701408][/doublepost]
Once you run out of real RAM performance drops off a cliff. This matters a lot when you are trying to prototype something and have a deadline to meet. 16GB just doesn't cut it. It's not about how much the OS needs, it's about how much your applications need to support your work.
[doublepost=1477701753][/doublepost]
And what happens when you need 32GB+ on the road? I use my laptop as my mobile VM lab. Need 32GB all the time, 64GB would be better. This is my cut-down lab. My desktop has 128GB RAM. We live in a world where people are producing high-end media (you must have hear of this thing called 4K??), or they work in IT and use a lot of virtualisation (that's kind of big too - this little thing called the cloud), both of these require lots of RAM. It cost too much money for individuals to have their test labs in a proper cloud environment so we have to have our own equipment to keep our skills up to date. This is a reality, not an argument, and other manufacturers seem to have realised this.
how about you tone it down a bit, nobody is wrong. we responded to specific cases. nobody is stating absolutes.
Last edited:
This right here is exactly why Apple users have been called fanatics and out of touch sheep in the past. Just stop it
My job involves spinning up lots of development systems for testing. This isn't an uncommon use case. Getting more than 16GB would be great. Other vendors are offering that. I'd gladly up the size of the laptop a small amount to get that extra performance. This is a Pro laptop after all.
WAS a pro laptop, WAS. The 'Pro' part now just means it's the more expensive laptop... not the better one.
Right now I'm idling at 43.98GB used. I know what I need and it's not this new toy they accidentally labeled a Pro device.
Apple just doesn't have a ****ing clue anymore. The truth is I actually had to go back and up-cycle a Mac Pro 2010 with two Xeon X5690s, 128GB ram, Samsung SM951 SSD, and a Nvidia 980 to actually get what I needed. It looks like from here on out I'll be using Hackintosh, and when they finally axe MacOS I'm jumping ship to Linux and Android. MacOS is the only reason I put up with Apple's shenanigans.
I think Jony's time has come... I think it's time to let him go...
If Safari was a boat it would be at the bottom of the river, because it leaks like crazy! I left it open while I was away on business and when I came back it had consumed all 128GB of memory in my Mac Pro 2010! By this point it was also using many GB of swap space; I tried to close it to reclaim all the memory, but it actually ended up crashing the whole system. Standard procedure now is to restart Safari every week.
Agreed... But at least they lead the way, now...
Its the thinnest most expensive laptop on the planet with the thinnest RAM package on the Market... I can literally picture Ivy stating this, in his Ivy Fashion in a future interview, 'We made it the thinnest we possibly could - so thin that you can't wind up spending money on excessive 32GB RAM - we did it for you. We made it so thin that we could actually remove the MagSafe because excessive weight would make the MacBook Pro break when hitting the floor, otherwise....
Next time, they'll probably drop the Battery to make it even thinner and ask folks to have it plugged into power all the time @ which point you will only need 8GB of RAM and thus save even more ;-(
Apple to people who need more RAM: Buy our year old computer or our three year old one. Our MBP is perpetually too thick and too heavy.
Nope, actually I do want to know. And if you were actually using 32GB of RAM, you would have a detailed answer like Polymorphic that also responded to my question with exact usage scenarios instead of just being defensive and calling people names.
All apps leak. One way or the other. Thats the Objective Oriented Way. Create an abundance of objects with multi-referencing is necessary but also bound to cause trouble... That said, the past years have gotten better. Much better.
And Safari is not immune to many developers writing Javascript and burning memory like crazy. It is not Safari leaking but the folks writing the code on the webpages..