Nvidia Max-Q. Apple about to get destroyed if it sticks with AMD.

[leman]

Now you have looked at the heads side of the coin now turn it over and look at the other side this is the point we are making, it's that simple

The cap is just as it has always been (actually, it has been pushed up because no Apple laptop supported 100W changing until now). And who says that USB power delivery spec is not going to be upgraded in the future to allow more powerful hardware?

Regardless, this entire discussion is utterly without substance. Apple made it very clear that it is not planning to put high-power GPUs in their portables — for very clear reasons. I don't understand why some of you act like this comes as a surprise. This is the design that they have followed for at least last 20 years. And it has nothing to do with whether they provide power via USB or some other charging port.

IE MBP will most likely remain a portable 85% daily consumer device and only a 15% Pro device

I find this statement fairly insulting to all professional users who don't need a high-end gaming card in their laptop. What is really hilarious about the situation is that the MBP never offered a high-end GPU (except early in the days where fastest of desktop GPUs hardly consumed 30 Watt of power), and that somehow people are still buying these laptops for professional work, even after 20 years.

 

[Ethosik]

The cap is just as it has always been (actually, it has been pushed up because no Apple laptop supported 100W changing until now). And who says that USB power delivery spec is not going to be upgraded in the future to allow more powerful hardware?

Regardless, this entire discussion is utterly without substance. Apple made it very clear that it is not planning to put high-power GPUs in their portables — for very clear reasons. I don't understand why some of you act like this comes as a surprise. This is the design that they have followed for at least last 20 years. And it has nothing to do with whether they provide power via USB or some other charging port.



I find this statement fairly insulting to all professional users who don't need a high-end gaming card in their laptop. What is really hilarious about the situation is that the MBP never offered a high-end GPU (except early in the days where fastest of desktop GPUs hardly consumed 30 Watt of power), and that somehow people are still buying these laptops for professional work, even after 20 years.

Yep I agree. This has nothing to do with how the power is delivered. It has to do with battery capacity which is why I brought up the FAA. Apple wants these to perform decently within a full work day ON BATTERY as much as possible. Throwing in a GTX 1080 in there messes that up. Now if the FAA was 200 watts, they could put a better GPU in there with the same battery life.

 

[leman]

Yep I agree. This has nothing to do with how the power is delivered. It has to do with battery capacity which is why I brought up the FAA.

I must say that I have to agree with the opposite camp here I don't think that this has anything to do much with FFA regulations. After all, the power delivery only influences how fast the battery will charge up. But it very well might be that the figures are related in some way (e.g. they though that 100W would make most sense given the maximal legal battery size).
[doublepost=1496408216][/doublepost]

Apple wants these to perform decently within a full work day ON BATTERY as much as possible. Throwing in a GTX 1080 in there messes that up.

Yep, thats the important point. It is not difficult to predict what kind of battery life can be expected of these Max-Q laptops. After all, we have Razor Blade. With FHD (no high-dpi) display + more efficient Kaby Lake CPU that laptop gets 1 hour less battery runtime than the 2016 MBP in browsing tests. I haven't found any figures for the QHD+ version, but drawing analogies from other laptops, its safe to say that we are talking at least 2-3 hours less. Trade almost half of the battery life on everyday workflows for a fast GPU? Just to cater to a small group of users who don't seem to be able to figure out their toolset?

 

[SteveJUAE]

Apple has a particular design target in mind, based on their own laptop vision — which, again, is over a decade old. Their laptops traditionally offer the best balance of performance, portability, battery and connectivity on the market. It might not work for some users, but it works for plenty. Apple has always been opinionated in their designs and I don't see how that is a bad thing. You might talk about "compromising everything" (fact: they have compromised nothing in comparison to their previous laptops), but this doesn't change the market situation. There is no other laptop currently on the market that matches the overall balance of the 15" MBP. There are laptops that are lighter and have better battery life (but sacrifice performance), there are laptops that have better GPUs (but sacrifice mobility and battery) and practically all of the competition sacrifices connectivity. So again, if Apple's vision doesn't suit your use case — there are enough of other laptops to choose from that choose to prioritise other areas (such as GPU performance).

Whilst what you note is reasonable and likely, Just because the compromises that have been taken may affect you the least does not make it a fact and the compromises are different to previous models

The have compromised lower entry point for some
They have compromised native support for some
They have compromised upgradeability for some
The have compromised reparability for all
They have compromised burden of connectivity

These have nothing to do with more subjective compromises re Keyboard, trackpad or touch bar that affect some

It's quite clear the latest focus is more middle ground now and it's always easy for some to say if you don't like it move on however this conflicts with other Apple strategies to encourage multiple devices etc and commitment some feel to the brand

 

[Ethosik]

I must say that I have to agree with the opposite camp here I don't think that this has anything to do much with FFA regulations. After all, the power delivery only influences how fast the battery will charge up. But it very well might be that the figures are related in some way (e.g. they though that 100W would make most sense given the maximal legal battery size).
[doublepost=1496408216][/doublepost]

Yep, thats the important point. It is not difficult to predict what kind of battery life can be expected of these Max-Q laptops. After all, we have Razor Blade. With FHD (no high-dpi) display + more efficient Kaby Lake CPU that laptop gets 1 hour less battery runtime than the 2016 MBP in browsing tests. I haven't found any figures for the QHD+ version, but drawing analogies from other laptops, its safe to say that we are talking at least 2-3 hours less. Trade almost half of the battery life on everyday workflows for a fast GPU? Just to cater to a small group of users who don't seem to be able to figure out their toolset?

And that is why it is the FAA being the limit here. 99wh battery with a GTX 1080 REGARDLESS if you have a 500 watt power adapter will still yield around 3 hours on BATTERY. Therefore, since Apple wants to provide the best battery life possible, we are stuck with these kinds of dGPU in the laptops. If they could provide a 200 wh battery, I bet you we would see better dGPU in our laptops. Power delivery does not matter here. Why didn't Apple do this before USB-C? Because they want to balance performance and battery life. Having a 99wh battery with a GTX 1080 class GPU does not fit their needs. If Apple was not limited to 99wh and could put in a 200 wh one, I bet you we would see better components across the board not just dGPU.

I mean I am not buddy buddy with Tim Cook or anything. None of us are. We are all speculating. but the fact that this was always the case even before USB-C and there are SO MUCH evidence of Apple doing stuff for the sake of battery life indicates that the 99wh limit being the end result. Power delivery does not matter if it has always been the case even before USB-C was being thought up.

 

[leman]

@SteveJUAE: you make some good points and yes, there is no doubt that the 2016 models have been less than convenient for a substantial group of users who suddenly saw their environment change dramatically. From my perspective, most of these changes (like adoption of new unified connectors) were necessary and ultimately "for the greater good". I know that its fashionable to make fun of Apple's "courage" these days — but what they are doing is indeed courage to me. They are willing to take a risk and piss of some of their customers in order to change computers for the better. And that is one of the the main reasons why I still strongly support Apple, despite its failings and occasional weird choices.

P.S. Yes, the price thing is annoying. I hope that they revert it back like they did with the original retina models.

 

[Ma2k5]

Sigh. Yes it is. In a way it is thanks to the law. Apple will not put a GPU in there that makes the battery last 1.5-2.8 hours or so. I guarantee you if the law was not in place and they could put larger batteries in there to make it LAPTOP WORTHY battery life, they would. But 100 w battery is the max, so they balance battery life out to where a LAPTOP dGPU can be used and still get VERY good battery life. Much better than those with the GTX 1080 cards in them.

Take a look at the reviews on some of those with a better GAMING GPU. 2.5 hours, 1.7 hours, and more around that range. I do NOT want to be on battery working on a video and have it only last 2.5 hours because it uses the GPU.

Therefore, Apple balanced it out to provide the best BALANCE of power and battery life. Double the battery capacity by throwing the law out the window and there is a BIGGER room for a higher performance GPU. They were always locked in with the FAA. Apple's goal is to make a perfectly balanced system with BATTERY LIFE and PERFORMANCE. Their goal is not to make Gaming laptops. Their goal is not to create mobile Workstations otherwise we would have seen Xeons in these for a long time now.

Edit. Razer Blade Pro battery life is only 2.75 hours just web browsing. Not even playing games. JUST WEB BROWSING. That is not attractive to be in a LAPTOP.

This really has nothing to do with the power adapters. Apple doesn't want to release a 99wh battery that only lasts 3 hours because they threw a GTX 1080 in there.

[doublepost=1496406263][/doublepost]

YES IT WAS. Read my post. Looking at it objectively it was always due to the FAA. Unless you don't mind Apple releasing a laptop that only lasts 3 hours like the ones with the GTX 1080 in them.

Man you are good at waffling/going off topic, actually that is being kind, this is Trump level of ******** from you. Stop being so stubborn and twisting this around, you got caught making an incorrect statement - get over it.

 

[Ethosik]

Man you are good at waffling/going off topic, actually that is being kind, this is Trump level of ******** from you. Stop being so stubborn and twisting this around, you got caught making an incorrect statement - get over it.

No I didn't. I firmly believe that the 99wh FAA regulations and Apple's desire to balance battery life with performance are the reasons why we have never had an incredible dGPU. It doesn't matter if there was a 500 watt power supply. Apple wants these to perform well for as many hours as possible. What does that use? Battery. Not a power supply.

If you don't agree that is fine. But I did not make a mistake. And I even showed evidence that BEFORE USB-C, the power supplies were within the USB-C charging limits too. So there really was no limit with that before. You can't blame USB-C if it was always below 100 w power supply.

What was Apple's main reason behind not putting in 32GB of RAM? Battery Life? Indeed so. And that would have less of an impact than a 1080 class dGPU. It doesn't matter if USB-C allowewd 500w power supply. ALL evidence points to Apple doing A LOT OF STUFF for battery life. What is the limit for battery life? Battery capacity. What is the limit to 100wh? FAA.

 

[SteveJUAE]

The cap is just as it has always been (actually, it has been pushed up because no Apple laptop supported 100W changing until now). And who says that USB power delivery spec is not going to be upgraded in the future to allow more powerful hardware?

Regardless, this entire discussion is utterly without substance. Apple made it very clear that it is not planning to put high-power GPUs in their portables — for very clear reasons. I don't understand why some of you act like this comes as a surprise. This is the design that they have followed for at least last 20 years. And it has nothing to do with whether they provide power via USB or some other charging port.



I find this statement fairly insulting to all professional users who don't need a high-end gaming card in their laptop. What is really hilarious about the situation is that the MBP never offered a high-end GPU (except early in the days where fastest of desktop GPUs hardly consumed 30 Watt of power), and that somehow people are still buying these laptops for professional work, even after 20 years.

I don't disagree its very much theoretical other than there is a current limitation with USB-C charging

Sorry I was not insinuating any tie with GPU just a simple statement of fact that Apple have noted that their Pro user base is only 15%, if anything maybe normal consumers may want higher GPU but that would be a complete guess

 

[Queen6]

I must say that I have to agree with the opposite camp here I don't think that this has anything to do much with FFA regulations. After all, the power delivery only influences how fast the battery will charge up. But it very well might be that the figures are related in some way (e.g. they though that 100W would make most sense given the maximal legal battery size).
[doublepost=1496408216][/doublepost]

Yep, thats the important point. It is not difficult to predict what kind of battery life can be expected of these Max-Q laptops. After all, we have Razor Blade. With FHD (no high-dpi) display + more efficient Kaby Lake CPU that laptop gets 1 hour less battery runtime than the 2016 MBP in browsing tests. I haven't found any figures for the QHD+ version, but drawing analogies from other laptops, its safe to say that we are talking at least 2-3 hours less. Trade almost half of the battery life on everyday workflows for a fast GPU? Just to cater to a small group of users who don't seem to be able to figure out their toolset?

You might want look at the systems with Optimus they are certainly running more than 2-3 hours on battery. Just because they are Windows focused, does not mean they are all solely gaming focused with Gsync displays enforcing the use of the dGPU.

Q-6

 

[leman]

You might want look at the systems with Optimus they are certainly running more than 2-3 hours on battery. Just because they are Windows focused, does not mean they are all solely gaming focused with Gsync displays enforcing the use of the dGPU.

I didn't say 2-3 hours, I said 2-3 hours less Which would put then in ballpark of 4-5 hours of light usage. Not absolutely terrible, but still a deep cut. Of course, this is still sufficient for some users and they would gladly trade few hours of battery life for a better GPU, no question. Thats what I meant with different balance focus.

 

[Queen6]

Apple have noted that their Pro user base is only 15%, if anything maybe normal consumers may want higher GPU but that would be a complete guess

Hence why we are stuck with designs like the 2016 MBP & "thinner" desktop's.

Apple is simply alienating a good proportion of it's professional users. Anyone have doubts, delve into the Mac Pro forum and see how happy the folks are there...

Maybe Apple is starting to wake up, equally many have already passed on the rotting fruit. Apple may very well desperately seek the approval and associated halo effect, of it's professional users, equally like all Apple needs deliver, stop procrastinating over & over.

By the time Tim & Co get their collective fingers out their arse's that 15% may very well have dwindled to an even lower number...

Q-6
[doublepost=1496416397][/doublepost]My ba

I didn't say 2-3 hours, I said 2-3 hours less Which would put then in ballpark of 4-5 hours of light usage. Not absolutely terrible, but still a deep cut. Of course, this is still sufficient for some users and they would gladly trade few hours of battery life for a better GPU, no question. Thats what I meant with different balance focus.

Yes your right on that one, although some of the newest notebooks are getting around 6 hours of mixed use. Admittedly you do have to match the hardware carefully to your needs IMHO.

Q-6

 

[Ma2k5]

No I didn't. I firmly believe that the 99wh FAA regulations and Apple's desire to balance battery life with performance are the reasons why we have never had an incredible dGPU. It doesn't matter if there was a 500 watt power supply. Apple wants these to perform well for as many hours as possible. What does that use? Battery. Not a power supply.

If you don't agree that is fine. But I did not make a mistake. And I even showed evidence that BEFORE USB-C, the power supplies were within the USB-C charging limits too. So there really was no limit with that before. You can't blame USB-C if it was always below 100 w power supply.

What was Apple's main reason behind not putting in 32GB of RAM? Battery Life? Indeed so. And that would have less of an impact than a 1080 class dGPU. It doesn't matter if USB-C allowewd 500w power supply. ALL evidence points to Apple doing A LOT OF STUFF for battery life. What is the limit for battery life? Battery capacity. What is the limit to 100wh? FAA.

All I read was more fluff, lying through your typing and going on more tangents than I care for. I am going to have to ignore you from now on.

 

[Ethosik]

All I read was more fluff, lying through your typing and going on more tangents than I care for. I am going to have to ignore you from now on.

Please explain how I am lying? Where did I make the mistake? I said FAA was to blame for the lack of dGPU and I provided my beliefs on that. I also provided proof that USB-C is not to blame about preventing power supplies from being over 100 w due to they never have been in the past.

The guy I quoted said that the reason we will not have a better dGPU is due to USB-C limiting to 100w. I said that was not the case due to the FAA as in Apple's desire to balance battery and power. Not because the FAA controlled the USB-C limit. That was not my reasoning behind the post. I also explained my beliefs as to why I think that and I showed PROOF that before the 2016 Macbook Pro, that there weren't power supplies above 100w for the USB-C argument. As for the dGPU argument, I explained why I believe that it is all to do with the FAA and Apple's vision to balance battery life and performance as best as possible.

 

[dallas112678]

Weird. I must be hallucinating then, because I could've sworn my tMBP is much faster then my 2010 cMP in Photoshop, InDesign and friends. Unless, of course, a memo went out excluding most of the CC suite from pro level aps, in which case I will have to redo my resume.

I think you may have made a statement which you will have a hard time backing up, unless you're going to construct a definition of pro use which is so convoluted as to be useless. I know professional photographers who run their businesses from 13" MBPs, 3D animators who use 15" MBPs, and on and on. I understand who wish Apple would use nVidia's GPU solutions, but you're taking it a little far.

You are kind of proving how bad the situation is when you are comparing it to a 7 year old computer, rather than its actual CURRENT competitors. You realize this, right?

 

[Kcetech1]

You are kind of proving how bad the situation is when you are comparing it to a 7 year old computer, rather than its actual CURRENT competitors. You realize this, right?

I was thinking the same since the old x5690 being the top most 6 core CPU in the 5.1 is still 30-40% slower than the old i7 4790 desktop and not much faster than a decent modern mobile i7. if the mac pro is still on spinners its gong to crawl compared to PCIe equipped SSD laptops or desktops, most of its I/O and systems are antiques now, even of some of us try to keep them running well as we have no option but to.

 

[dyn]

Wrong legal limit for carry on is not the same as the 100W power supply limitation of USB C.

USB-C doesn't have a power supply limitation. It is only specced to carry 100W of power maximum. That only means that you can power a notebook that uses USB-C with 100W maximum via that USB-C port. It does not mean that the notebook is powered with 100W nor that the power adapter is limited at 100W (it wouldn't be hard to imagine these portable generators being equipped with USB-C so you can charge smartphones, tablets, notebooks and what not). It depends, with USB-C and USB-PD the charger and notebook will negotiate the amount of Watts; if the notebook is nearly full then there is no need for charging it at the max 100W.
It also means that the notebook is not limited at being 100W, it can be far more. That 100W is for charging only! You can charge while not running at high load or you can trickle charge when running at high load (in which case it is more like a means of not fully depleting the battery, it is simply extending battery life a bit).

Things aren't as simple as you think nor are they only applicable to Apple. When you look at all the other manufacturers you'll quickly see that there are hardly any notebooks around exceeding the 100W limits. That's because there are far more things at play here than merely power. Heat is another big issue with these. You don't want to have melting plastics or devices becoming so hot that people can burn themselves (something with liability). Physics are a much bigger issue than the 100W max charging limit of the USB-C standard.

Not to mention that Apple is using Thunderbolt 3, a protocol that officially supports eGPUs. I wouldn't be surprised if the new macOS Apple is likely to announce coming Monday will come with official eGPU support as well. This would enable the use of far more powerful GPUs than any of the mobile ones that are available in the coming few years.

agreed, but they do hurt a large segment of their customer base which use a mix of software, FCP screams along on the AMD GPU's for sure but as soon as I flip to Maya, 3dsMax, Revit, Solidworks, CC, Avid and a couple more I start slamming my head against the wall and flip machines.

Most of those kind of applications require ISV certified hardware which none of the Nvidia GPUs people here are want to be put in the MBP have.

Apple has a long history of not caring about GPUs, and they're more interested in providing a solution that caters to the majority. There's a reason why Oculus CEO Slamed Apple, its because they don't have the hardware to run VR.

And for that you could slam the Occulus CEO because why would VR require that insane amount of computing power? It never did before (have a look at the average VR lab and the hardware it uses...even the old hardware from 5 to 8 years ago does a good job). The only thing the slamming of the Oculus CEO says is that Oculus and VR aren't ready and that they are too cocky. Samsung is one of the companies that have shown that a smartphone is perfectly capable in doing VR and thus there is no need for the kind of hardware Oculus requires.

For my needs and wants, it doesn't matter if Apple uses AMD or nvidia, tbh and I'm not complaining about Apple, but rather pointing out that for what ever reason Apple chooses to use slower GPUs. Heck, I remember people complaining about how Apple underclocked the GPUs, just so the laptop could have decent battery life.

In a small package such as a notebook one can only fit so much. That's why there is a very good future for eGPUs (you can have 1 package fully dedicated to the GPU and making sure that it runs cool; the heat will not affect the other components and thus cause them to drop in speed due to throttling). I think people are forgetting the fact that there are design constraints.

 

[ipponrg]

I agree, it's great for development, does that mean that's all it should be great at? No, after all, it's called the "Pro" which implies a range of professions. Right now, the MBP is only truly good for programming and Final Cut. If you need any other professional apps then you are at a very expensive disadvantage all due to Apple's obsession with thinness and the resulting choice of AMD.

If the MBP was truly good for programming and nothing else, then they've done a good job from a business perspective because there are way more developers out than dedicated gamers. Hardcore gamers probably aren't going to buy a MBP even if it had the Nvidia Max Q in it partially due to MacOS. So not sure exactly what you're trying to solve here. You're not going to attract the right gamers to a Mac platform.

As for the video card question, this is very simple, offer multiple tiers of GPU performance exactly like they do now. Except do it with a brand that offers significantly more performance with a much higher ceiling for use in professional applications (nVidia). You could have a lower powered nVidia card that keeps your battery life, while also giving other access to significantly more power if they'd like to pay an upgrade fee.

I agree with this in that I prefer Nvidia over AMD. However, they essentially offered this with the AMD tiers. I believe one of the reasons they went with AMD was partly due to agreements. I don't think it's as easy to offer multiple tiers/brands from a business perspective as you make it out to be.

 

[leman]

I agree with this in that I prefer Nvidia over AMD. However, they essentially offered this with the AMD tiers. I believe one of the reasons they went with AMD was partly due to agreements. I don't think it's as easy to offer multiple tiers/brands from a business perspective as you make it out to be.

My problem with Nvidia right now is that they seem to completely disregard mid-range in the current iteration. They solely focus on the high-end, high-TDP cards (1060 GTX+). They last generation offered some very nice mid-range cards: 950M, 960M, 965M (although the later was on the hotter side). Right now, their only proper mid-range offering is the rather "meh" GTX 1050. The laws of physic didn't change and cooling down a 70W GPU didn't become easier overnight. Again, we can already see it on the example of the Razor blade, which has to cut down its battery size to accommodate the cooling system and still throttles like crazy. I am curious to see how they will solve it with the Max-Q laptops. My guess is that they will either throttle as well or reserve more of the internal space for cooling.

 

[gadgetfreaky]

If we do a Intel Chip at 45+ 1060 GTX Maz-q at 60 that's only 105. Or perhaps NVidia makes a modified version just for Apple at 55 so the total is 100. I did see a job posting for someone to make drivers for Nvida - maybe we see it. I don't see a 1050 with Max-q but perhaps the next generation will.

 

[leman]

If we do a Intel Chip at 45+ 1060 GTX Maz-q at 60 that's only 105.

Don't forget about the rest of the components: RAM, SSD, display, internal connectivity etc. — they also draw a substantial amount of power.

Or perhaps NVidia makes a modified version just for Apple at 55 so the total is 100. I did see a job posting for someone to make drivers for Nvida - maybe we see it. I don't see a 1050 with Max-q but perhaps the next generation will.

But would it make any sense? At around 70W, the 1060 GTX is about twice as fast as the Pro 460. Which means very comparable performance per watt. Also, the performance/power draw don't scale linearly. Can one undercook the GP106 to around 45-50W? Most likely. Would the performance be better than Polaris 11 or GP107 at the same TDP? We don't know. Probably not, or what would be the point in making the GP107 in the first place?

And in addition, if the new MBP would come with higher VRAM clock (to match the gaming variants) and some more process optimisations, the Polaris might reach or maybe even surpass the GTX 1050 while still staying under 45W. I guess we'll see in a day or two whether there are any GPU updates.

 

[ugru]

If Apple was not limited to 99wh and could put in a 200 wh one, I bet you we would see better components across the board not just dGPU.

No. Because a bigger battery would mean a thicker laptop, and Apple has an asinine obsession for thinnes...

We have the proof of this with iPhone and iPad....they made them so thin that they had to have a butt ugly protruding camera and a battery that is pathetically smaller than the competition, just because they could say "we made it thinner!"

I think at last they understood and stopped this nonsense the iPhone 7 and the new iPad are not thinner than their predecessors. Hope it will be the same with laptops, at least the MBP...

 

[TheOkeland]

If we do a Intel Chip at 45+ 1060 GTX Maz-q at 60 that's only 105. Or perhaps NVidia makes a modified version just for Apple at 55 so the total is 100. I did see a job posting for someone to make drivers for Nvida - maybe we see it. I don't see a 1050 with Max-q but perhaps the next generation will.

Your are missing the fact, that there are other components that need power to.
So you should spare 5-10 Watts for something like SSD or Display, etc.
AFAIK the 1060 Max-Q is designed to have a TDP around 60 to 70 Watts.
So with CPU we would be at around 110 to 130 Watts.

IMO it should be possible to modify a 1050-Ti-Notebook to fit into the MBP. Or if the 1050 ti would be a problem, even the 1050 would have more performance than the Pro-460.

In my opinion a good eGPU-Support is more important. The Pro 460 is a good graphics-card on the go and the MBP is not build as a gaming-machine.
So if we want to play games with our MBPs we should bite the bullet and buy a eGPU-enclosure.

This would mean:

• upgrade-able gpu
• Charging the MBP while docked
• Additional peripherals over one cable (I do not know how additional Data-Connection interfere with raw GPU Performance, would love to see some Benchmarks on it)

And if apple would want to really speed the eGPU movement, they could add a functionality to their OS, so that we could accelerate multiple TB3-Ports at the same time as it would be one port.
Driving a 1080-Ti at FULL Speed plus some SSDs/HDDs, Ethernet and other peripherals through only two cable and get a charged Laptop at the same time? Would be awesome!!!

I hope Apple lowers the price a little bit tomorrow, so the MBP + eGPU is not that pricy...
[doublepost=1496587812][/doublepost]

No. Because a bigger battery would mean a thicker laptop, and Apple has an asinine obsession for thinnes...

We have the proof of this with iPhone and iPad....they made them so thin that they had to have a butt ugly protruding camera and a battery that is pathetically smaller than the competition, just because they could say "we made it thinner!"

I think at last they understood and stopped this nonsense the iPhone 7 and the new iPad are not thinner than their predecessors...

Apple was able to fit a bigger battery into the MBP, but they run out of time.
Hope they will improve on this point.

 

[ugru]

No...the battery is smaller than the 2015.
I doubt the free space is enough to put 25% more capacity and return to 99.5 (on the 15")

Thinnes, as in iPhones and iPads, has reached the point in which is counterproductive...the 2015 was already perfect....

 

[gadgetfreaky]

Don't forget about the rest of the components: RAM, SSD, display, internal connectivity etc. — they also draw a substantial amount of power.



But would it make any sense? At around 70W, the 1060 GTX is about twice as fast as the Pro 460. Which means very comparable performance per watt. Also, the performance/power draw don't scale linearly. Can one undercook the GP106 to around 45-50W? Most likely. Would the performance be better than Polaris 11 or GP107 at the same TDP? We don't know. Probably not, or what would be the point in making the GP107 in the first place?

And in addition, if the new MBP would come with higher VRAM clock (to match the gaming variants) and some more process optimisations, the Polaris might reach or maybe even surpass the GTX 1050 while still staying under 45W. I guess we'll see in a day or two whether there are any GPU updates.

good stuff. I have to say this thread has helped me understand things quite a bit.
I had read there was a job posting for someone to make Nvidia drivers at Apple for GPUs so I'm hopeful we'll see a return. That said, my guess is it won't be this June- at best October. It feels like after years of stagnation we're finally getting some movement in GPU and processor power and efficiency. Can't wait for the first wave of these benefits to hit MBP.