Well that was a good idea, because it will remain "new" for the next three years....and I bought this year a new MacBook Pro
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.
Next-Generation DDR5 RAM Will Double Speeds of DDR4 RAM as MacBook Pro Remains on LPDDR3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for the link! will read and reup on knowledge.
But that just further re-affirms that I believe the new Mac Book Pro was a bit of a "miss". Would people complain if it had DDR4 up to 32gb but be 2-3mm thicker so that the battery can be sufficient? or, do you think most people are fine with 2-3mm shaved off, but sacrifice potential RAM performance and size or battery life?
but I don't want to get into the debate over the merrits of the new macbook pro. it's a great laptop. just has a few "misses" that prevented it from being a truly fantastic device
Apple hasn't cared about pro users in years. Pro users are concerned about performance and reliability, but apple continues to think making their products thinner is somehow innovative. Apple can't innovate without a leader willing to challenge them to do better.
I know people always want the latest and the best, at leas that's what it says on paper.
But I'm typing this on the maxed out 2016 macbook pro model and I don't get the complaints.
I'm a very very heavy user, and the software management of MacOS is just great. My windows computer which in theory should be much faster (desktop i7 (5ghz), 32gb ddr4 ram, gtx 1080).
while in reality my macbook pro feels much faster for programming and video editing, i only use windows for gaming.
Back to the point, the macbook pro is just a beast, and i wonder if people ever use max ram/cpu for a long period of time, cause for me everything seems to go quite fast.
But I'm typing this on the maxed out 2016 macbook pro model and I don't get the complaints.
I'm a very very heavy user, and the software management of MacOS is just great. My windows computer which in theory should be much faster (desktop i7 (5ghz), 32gb ddr4 ram, gtx 1080).
while in reality my macbook pro feels much faster for programming and video editing, i only use windows for gaming.
Back to the point, the macbook pro is just a beast, and i wonder if people ever use max ram/cpu for a long period of time, cause for me everything seems to go quite fast.
Who needs 32GB of DDR4 when you have a sweet ass touch bar?
Yeah sure. Dump Intel, then the MR forum haters will hate Apple for that.
This is a good opportunity for AMD to make a move on Apple. A little competition is the only way out of this.
DDR3 and LPDDR3 are not the same, stop spreading misinformation for crying out loud.
And... with a wide-gamut DCI-P3 display, and four Thunderbolt 3 ports, each extremely versatile and supporting 40 Gbps data rates, and the laptop supporting two 5K external displays.
In the meantime, App$e is charges new prices for old hardware standards. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Meanwhile, this lemon of a MBP has been giving me RAM alerts since the first week of use. Maybe it's the perfect toy to look upwardly mobile in a Starbucks bench, but for actual work, not so much -_-
[doublepost=1491238415][/doublepost]
Mine hasn't remained new for 2 months even. A streak of kernel panic errors had me swapping it for another device. Ridiculous.
[doublepost=1491238499][/doublepost]
The display is sweet, granted. The ports are useless for present usage scenarios. And the 5K displays... are you referring to the ones that glitch/distort when placed next to routers? LOL
[doublepost=1491238415][/doublepost]
Mine hasn't remained new for 2 months even. A streak of kernel panic errors had me swapping it for another device. Ridiculous.
[doublepost=1491238499][/doublepost]
The display is sweet, granted. The ports are useless for present usage scenarios. And the 5K displays... are you referring to the ones that glitch/distort when placed next to routers? LOL
This thread basically explains the problem Apple have. In this specific case, Apple is in fact choosing the best optimized parts for the hardware constraint they have but it is not the latest "spec" because people think DDR4 is better. It isn't. LPDDR3 is far more power-optimized than DDR4 at "standby or idle" levels even if they both have the same max voltage levels. DDR requires power all the time, it cannot idle with zero power because it requires power to maintain the content in RAM all the time.
So why not go with LPDDR4 then? It didn't exist back when Apple started with the current generation and no Intel CPU on the market supported LPDDR4 at that time.
Apple chose to maintain your battery life over the performance or "spec numbers" and in this case, I rather have slower RAM with longer battery life than faster RAM. You are almost not going to notice the difference in everyday usage between DDR3 and DDR4 and same for DDR5 at this current spec, there is no latency reduction with DDR5, so you will not experience faster stuff using DDR5 either.
The only benefit of DDR5/4 for common users is density and the number of people wanting 32GB of RAM is extremely small. Since Apple is not in market for professional users that need 32GB, they could care less and going to focus on what majority of users want, light powerful devices with longer battery life. That's where Apple failed for me, they could've gone with larger battery in the same thicker chassis.
So why not go with LPDDR4 then? It didn't exist back when Apple started with the current generation and no Intel CPU on the market supported LPDDR4 at that time.
Apple chose to maintain your battery life over the performance or "spec numbers" and in this case, I rather have slower RAM with longer battery life than faster RAM. You are almost not going to notice the difference in everyday usage between DDR3 and DDR4 and same for DDR5 at this current spec, there is no latency reduction with DDR5, so you will not experience faster stuff using DDR5 either.
The only benefit of DDR5/4 for common users is density and the number of people wanting 32GB of RAM is extremely small. Since Apple is not in market for professional users that need 32GB, they could care less and going to focus on what majority of users want, light powerful devices with longer battery life. That's where Apple failed for me, they could've gone with larger battery in the same thicker chassis.
I'm typing this on the maxed out 2016 MBP too, which has given me an orchestra of kernel panics, RAM alerts, beachballs, program crashes, Touchbar glitches and a plethora of accidental mistakes due to the ridiculous size of the trackpad. Experiences vary.
Hell, I'm still rocking a 2014 rMBP (15", 2.5), and it's still every bit the excellent machine it was when I bought it. Video editing & motion graphics, audio production, all perform excellently. It's even handled 3D work in the past. The GT 750M isn't even remotely capable of keeping up with recent AAA gaming, but it handles Civ adequately.
Honestly, the only part of the current MBPs (other than battery considerations) that anyone should be thoughtful about is the graphics chip; mobile dGPUs get left behind by games pretty quickly, but that's always been the case. The 2016 models are pretty great all-rounders.
I'm really tired out of this kind of statements… Bla bla bla… Performance? What do you think about FCPX being the faster NLE in every feature it has? Best for organizing media, best to edit, best to export. LPX, another professional app. Mainstage, Motion, Compressor. I really don't get these complaints…
My late 2013 iMac is a beast of a machine and it will be fine for me for more 5 years, I'm sure.
It's a company-issued laptop. I'm stuck with it because they refuse to offer the 2015 model.
I'm typing this on the same machine, and my experience has been flawless, it makes me wonder what the hell is going on with Apple's QA.
A Macbook is a portable computer. For most people, battery life is a bigger bottleneck than performance.
I fully expect Apple to dump Intel by the end of 2019 at the latest. They need to control this better and not be so reliant on another company's cycle. I am confident they'll be able to execute.
If you want to be able to enjoy emerging technologies like this early, a Windows computer is your best bet. The Surface Book itself is still on DDR3. I am considering either between the Surface Book 2 (if and when it comes) or a iPad Pro 9.7 (first or second gen). I will go with the SB 2 if it has DDR4 and Cannon/Coffeelake. If not, then I am choosing the iPad.
ALL of this could have been easily solved by not making it so bloody thin.
Last edited by a moderator: