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

[Ethosik]

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...

And the thinness is desirable in a laptop. Laptop. These things are what you carry around. I want it to be thin.

The evidence is clear. What did they say the reason for no 32GB of RAM? Would that be a bigger impact than putting in a GTX 1080?

Thinness might be another factor. But it is not because of USB-C.

 

[matram]

The evidence is clear. What did they say the reason for no 32GB of RAM? Would that be a bigger impact than putting in a GTX 1080?

Here is a reference explaining why no 32 GB

https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pro-limited-16gb-ram/

 

[ugru]

And the thinness is desirable in a laptop. Laptop. These things are what you carry around. I want it to be thin.

No it is not, if thinnes comes too much at the cost of performance.
If you value thinnes that much Apple might as well kill the MBP and sell only MB which is very very thin...

A laptop is a compromise between portability and performances.
lf you have 2 lines of laptop one named MB and the other named MBP that should mean that one is compromised on the portability side the other on the performance side...
Apple is actually compromising both lines on the thin/low performance side....

 

[Ethosik]

No it is not, if thinnes comes too much at the cost of performance.
If you value thinnes that much Apple might as well kill the MBP and sell only MB which is very very thin...

A laptop is a compromise between portability and performances.
lf you have 2 lines of laptop one named MB and the other named MBP that should mean that one is compromised on the portability side the other on the performance side...
Apple is actually compromising both lines on the thin/low performance side....

Uhhhh that is exactly what the MBP is. It is BETTER than the MacBook. People REALLY need to stop overreacting to the term Pro in product names. I am seriously shocked how confusing it is for people. Pro just means "Better than the base model". MacBook is the base, MacBook Pro is the "Better than the base model". Pro does not mean "RENDER 16K videos!!!!!!" Or "Run 200 Virtual Machines!!!!!" Or "Play games at 4K at 60FPS!!!!". Pro in product names just means "Enhanced".

And no they are not compromising both lines. It needs a balance. Being a laptop I need to take places, as in what a laptop is designed for, it needs to be thin and light. That is what a WORK laptop needs. I do not want to carry around a super thick 5-10 pound laptop all day to conference rooms and out in the field and to clients.
[doublepost=1496671365][/doublepost]

Here is a reference explaining why no 32 GB

https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pro-limited-16gb-ram/

Yes, that is why I believe that the FAA regulations are to blame for the lack of better dGPU. The fact that they were SO WORRIED about battery life to even put in 32 GB of RAM. Would that have LESS of an impact than a GTX 1080? No. Some have suggested that 32GB of RAM would alter the battery life only SLIGHTLY. Where we see laptops with 99 wh batteries and only get around 2-3 hours of battery life with a 1080 in them.

 

[leman]

No it is not, if thinnes comes too much at the cost of performance.

I totally agree with you of course. If Apple were to downgrade the components they use in order to make computers thinner, I'd be the first one to get very upset. But they have managed to make computers lighter and thinner without reducing the performance (in fact, you got 2X faster GPU compared to previous gen). In this regard, I see no reason to complain.

 

[Ethosik]

I totally agree with you of course. If Apple were to downgrade the components they use in order to make computers thinner, I'd be the first one to get very upset. But they have managed to make computers lighter and thinner without reducing the performance (in fact, you got 2X faster GPU compared to previous gen). In this regard, I see no reason to complain.

Yes I agree. Thinness and lightness are very desirable when you need to hold your laptop a lot every day.

 

[dyn]

No it is not, if thinnes comes too much at the cost of performance.

It's not really thinness but more portability. Dimensions, weight, thermal envelope, etc. all have an influence on portability. Mind you, any company bringing out a product that is called "notebook" or "laptop" (even though these are different kinds of machines) has to obey the law and thus create a machine that is exactly what the definition of those words mean: a portable device. It is also what most users demand, it's what they are buying a notebook for. If you can't meet that then the machine is not going to sell well.

lf you have 2 lines of laptop one named MB and the other named MBP that should mean that one is compromised on the portability side the other on the performance side...
Apple is actually compromising both lines on the thin/low performance side....

No, Apple has various machines with various compromises between portability and performance. However, with any notebook, if performance is what matters most to you, you are looking at the wrong device. Notebooks will never be about performance. Performance is one of the only reasons left why desktops still have a reason to exist. An eGPU is just another way of dealing with the restraints that come with a notebook and right now it is a rather expensive one too.

Btw, each OEM picks his own set of compromises. That means that some will have a notebook with a higher performance but lower battery life while others will have the exact opposite. Basically you need to pick your own poison.

 

[omenatarhuri]

I totally agree with you of course. If Apple were to downgrade the components they use in order to make computers thinner, I'd be the first one to get very upset. But they have managed to make computers lighter and thinner without reducing the performance (in fact, you got 2X faster GPU compared to previous gen). In this regard, I see no reason to complain.

If you want to make a fair comparison look at the others as well. Max Q stuff looks like they will stuff very powerful components in thin and silent machines. So it seems like its exactly for type of PCs Apple makes.

 

[leman]

If you want to make a fair comparison look at the others as well. Max Q stuff looks like they will stuff very powerful components in thin and silent machines. So it seems like its exactly for type of PCs Apple makes.

There are two completely different topics here that people keep mixing up constantly. First topic: if we keep Apple's design spec for the MBP (which has been constant for 15 years and means sub 45W GPU), what impact does the Max-Q has for Apple. Answer: absolutely zero, thats just marketing speak for gaming laptops, which have very different design parameters — and the slowest Max-Q card is still 15W above Apple's spec. Second topic: should/will Apple change their design spec and dedicate more internal space to cooling so that they can accommodate a more powerful GPU? My guess: its unlikely (because that would mean dramatically changing the MBP's DNA).

At the moment, the only Nvidia's GPU that would fit in Apple's spec is the mobile GTX 1050. And Apple can most likely get the same level of performance simply by upping the clocks on their current AMD cards by 5% + using faster (gaming optimised) VRAM. There are absolutely no reasons for Apple to move to Nvidia at this point, unless they really decide to completely change the MBP design and make it more of a gaming laptop.

 

[omenatarhuri]

There are two completely different topics here that people keep mixing up constantly. First topic: if we keep Apple's design spec for the MBP (which has been constant for 15 years and means sub 45W GPU), what impact does the Max-Q has for Apple. Answer: absolutely zero, thats just marketing speak for gaming laptops, which have very different design parameters — and the slowest Max-Q card is still 15W above Apple's spec. Second topic: should/will Apple change their design spec and dedicate more internal space to cooling so that they can accommodate a more powerful GPU? My guess: its unlikely (because that would mean dramatically changing the MBP's DNA).

At the moment, the only Nvidia's GPU that would fit in Apple's spec is the mobile GTX 1050. And Apple can most likely get the same level of performance simply by upping the clocks on their current AMD cards by 5% + using faster (gaming optimised) VRAM. There are absolutely no reasons for Apple to move to Nvidia at this point, unless they really decide to completely change the MBP design and make it more of a gaming laptop.

Its not mixing topics when title of thread is Max Q.

 

[leman]

Its not mixing topics when title of thread is Max Q.

Exactly, and for the MacBook Pro Max-Q is completely irrelevant, because it doesn't offer a single GPU with suitable TDP. As I've said before, Max-Q is a marketing thing aimed at gaming laptops. Apple already uses similar tech for their current GPUs in the MBP.

 

[dpny]

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?

No. I'm saying your ridiculous statement that the MBPs aren't good pro machine shows you don't know what you're talking about.

MaxQ isn't really some new tech. It's nVidia taking the best yields from their fabs.