I guess people are just so used to doing what Apple tells them, especially with iOS. No freedom whatsoever.
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
I guess people are just so used to doing what Apple tells them, especially with iOS. No freedom whatsoever.
Efficiency gained by switching from DDR3 to DDR4 will allow doubling of memory to 32GB.
Efficiency gained by switching from DDR3 to DDR4 will allow doubling of memory to 32GB.
But that would've cost Apple an extra 3 cents per unit! /s
Bill Gates: 640kB ought to be enough for anybody
Tim Cook: 16GB ought to be enough for anybody
Tim Cook: 16GB ought to be enough for anybody
16GB is planned obsolesce and nothing more. Greedy bstard Tim.
I was just specing a new laptop for work. 32GB minimum, 64GB preferably. I guess it won't be a mac. Apple really has abandoned the pro market.
Yes, they exist. Look at Amazon for mobile DDR3 modules of 16GB. They're pretty recent, but yes, they exist.
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct204864bf160b
Last edited:
There must be some fairly angry pros right now. If they're forced to leave, they won't be back.
But still, only 20GB. Not 32GB.
[doublepost=1477711341][/doublepost]
Prosumer? I do not think Adobe series do not need a large amount of ram when processing photos, especially large ones.
Overrunning early supply? Just produce less and voila! "Out of stock" all the time! Easy!
Wrong. I DON'T WANT A SMALLER LAPTOP. I NEED A PRO MACHINE. I'm a professional musician and developer, and I WORK ON MY LAPTOP 10+ hours a day. I was simply pointing out that the form over function argument is both inaccurate and irrelevant. I'm as frustrated as anybody else, but I'm also frustrated to keep hearing the same cliched complaint...
First part true, second part irrelevant...
Well, maybe. But maybe that's not it (or not all of it)... I think this is actually about being able to make "claims", to keep investors happy. Whether it's "thinnest", or "longest battery life", or "most energy efficient", or whatever... It's about stats and quotable "bests"... it's irritating as hell, but it's nowhere near as simplistic as "form over function". Besides that, very few laptops made today are not "fashion accessories"—it's just a matter of what your demographic considers fashionable... (And actually, the vast majority of laptops today are underpowered in order to conserve energy and remain highly portable... I know, because since yesterday I've been checking out hardware options for a hackintosh notebook!...)
You see, I'm not. Not at all. Because the dGPU is indispensable to a pro machine that many people use for video/graphics. So it's there because it has to be. Honestly, it's absurd to claim that this is not a "pro" machine. If they hadn't massively jacked up the prices I'd already have ordered one.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think the power argument is just a smokescreen. More than likely, they're planning to draw this model out for a very long time, and they can't be certain what features they'll be able to concretely improve. So they're giving themselves lots of wiggle room. Next year, they'll release 32GB BTO and bam! Upgrades! Lame upgrades, but at least they can "claim" to have released a "new" machine...
btw, the real crime here is the 256GB standard SSD. THAT is just a hidden tax, since they know damn well every professional out there will upgrade to AT LEAST 512...
oh, and really, 32GB memory may not be such a big deal, since I'd imagine swap file usage will be blazing fast on the new SSDs...
Bingo! I do quite intensive photo/video work in PS and FCP and even I dont need more than 16GB of RAM. Unless you are doing some kind of high level work for Pixar, you shouldn't either. If you do, there are plenty of Windows PCs to go buy....
Nope. You can run more than 4gb of RAM on a 32-bit OS. You just have to use a modern processor that can use PAE.
haha... yes, exactly. I work regularly with large, orchestral samples libraries, and while I could certainly make use of more memory, I very seldom actually need it. Also, in that world, the extra speed on the SSD will allow for smaller sample heads, by shifting the work to streaming...
[doublepost=1477712354][/doublepost]
Ah, okay. Fair enough. Haven't thought about it since the old processors!
People have been buying a 4+ year old Apple laptops at top prices... I'm sure they did the math and knew they could easily get away with raising prices on a new laptop and make even more profits. You people are the shills for showing Apple with your wallets that you are still loving it.
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
Or Apple could just offer it if that is what people want and are willing to pay for...
According to Schiller, more than 16GB RAM would consume too much power and have a negative impact on battery life.
Dear Phil, I really care about power consumption when my 2011 13" MacBook Pro is attached to a power supply most of the times anyway. ;-)
BTW, this 5-years old machine has had 16 GB RAM for ages!!! Well, that's because Apple used to be so nice in the past that it let it's customers install 3rd party RAM even if Apple did not sell such high-spec but a customer needed it.
The same goes for other PRO products. My two 2010 Mac Pros have 128 GB of RAM each (doing physics simulations)... now 6 years later the celebrated trashcan Mac Pro maxes out at the same amount. Not to mention the inferior expandability (without tons of external enclosures) and the lag in updating the machine (is it so hard to swap the CPU / GPU whenever Intel/AMD/Nvidia update their products)? I don't understand Apple's PRO-oriented decisions. They force things no one cares about (such as making the Mac Pro as small as possible) and neglect things PRO users would care about - best specs and usability/expandability. Then they wonder the Pro products don't sell and then they kill them reasoning they didn't sell.
I really hope the iphone hype is over soon and Apple be forced to actually focus on computers again.
BTW, regarding the power consumption... In case anyone is so naive that battery life would be decimated by some extra RAM: Since it's no problem to switch on/off a dedicated GPU on the fly, is the Apple engineering not able to switch off/on RAM modules when not needed? ;-)
Last edited:
This is nonsense.
If I create a BTO configuration with 32 GB of memory, I know it will have less battery life.
However that is my choice.
Apple, please add this as a configuration option ASAP. Otherwise I will have to continue buying Dell PCs for my big memory or multi-virtual machine compute tasks.
And please do not say "You can run that type of stuff in the Cloud".
Also,since you are forcing these USB-c ports on us, it would be nice if you tossed in one of the SanDisk dual headed thumb drives.
Lastly I really love the audio port. I wish I had one in my iPhone7.
If I create a BTO configuration with 32 GB of memory, I know it will have less battery life.
However that is my choice.
Apple, please add this as a configuration option ASAP. Otherwise I will have to continue buying Dell PCs for my big memory or multi-virtual machine compute tasks.
And please do not say "You can run that type of stuff in the Cloud".
Also,since you are forcing these USB-c ports on us, it would be nice if you tossed in one of the SanDisk dual headed thumb drives.
Lastly I really love the audio port. I wish I had one in my iPhone7.
What hinders you to order a machine with as little RAM as they offer if you truly believe some extra RAM would severely suck the battery? 99% percent of Mac Book Pro users I know would appreciate 32 / 64 / 128 you name it GB of RAM for the work they do. Let people have choice. The fact that you don't care about something means nothing.
[doublepost=1477716200][/doublepost]
Just try to diagonalize a 2^16 by 2^16 matrix and I'll watch your memory compression techniques at work ;-). 16GB RAM max for a (wannabe) Pro laptop in 2016 is a bad joke. Moore's law, anyone?
Wow. What Jobs described is exactly what Apple is today. The company is run by sales and marketing people. Every decision is about profit, and almost none is about true innovation or even its customer.
[doublepost=1477717105][/doublepost]
You can certainly give the choices to customers.
What happens is that Apple is moving towards the mass consumer market and no longer cares about real professional use, although this could backfire. What made Apple products trendy was that every creative professionals were using it. Without these, MacBook Pros are just like every other competing products.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-blank/why-tim-cook-is-steve-bal_b_12622376.html
macrumors used to be kind of fun. Now I come here expecting to see complaining,
and I complain along with the rest of you!
Did we change? - no -
I think apple has - and this article sums it up really, really well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-blank/why-tim-cook-is-steve-bal_b_12622376.html
Great read, thanks for sharing.
Why are you stringing together unrelated memory types? DDR3 and DDR4 are not compatible with LPDDR3 and LPDDR4. Skylake only supports DDR3L, LPDDR3, and DDR4. It does not support DDR3 and it does not support LPDDR4. Of the three memory types Skylake supports, LPDDR3 uses the least power.Efficiency gained by switching from DDR3 to DDR4 will allow doubling of memory to 32GB.