Redesigned MacBook Pro Models With 10-Core Apple Silicon Chip Said to Launch as Early as This Summer

[chucker23n1]

Literally only if you use exactly one HDMI device.

Sure, but that's… extremely common? I personally use two external displays, usually, but I'm betting people who use only the internal display >> people who use one external display >>> people who use two or more.

If you use four TB3/USB-C devices now, having a HDMI port doesn't help,

Seriously, who uses four Thunderbolt devices?

Four USB-C devices? Maybe. But one of those "devices" will really be the AC adapter, and by your own logic, that's kind of moot because you might as well get a dock or hub. Is it great that we can plug those in on either side? Yes! Do we need four of those ports? No, not really.

Plenty of displays either don't support HDMI (hint: every single display Apple has sold, either their own or 3rd parties - for the last decade) or are limited to lower resolution/refresh rate over HDMI (hint: any display > 4K, which means any good display over about 24")

Until Apple is willing to do a display in the low-to-mid three figures, they basically don't have a display. The Pro Display XDR is extremely niche. The Thunderbolt Display before it was interesting in its cable solution, but otherwise overpriced, and not even Retina (which made sense when it was introduced, but… made it age really poorly).

And as much as I wish there were more Retina-style displays above 24 inches (or, really, at any size), there aren't, and moving from HDMI to USB-C doesn't change that. So, $300 4K @ 24 inches display it is, maybe with a slightly overprovisioned resolution to get Retina pixel density (at slight quality loss). And yes, such a display will almost certainly be HDMI. It could be DisplayPort, but I've rarely seen those in practice. It will almost certainly not be USB-C, because why would it be?

You're also ignoring projectors. Again, almost certainly HDMI.

Regardless of that - plenty of use-cases for TB3 ports, are completely unrelated to displays - because surprise ****ing surprise TB3 ports can connect to all number of things...

They can connect to plenty of things once you have an adapter, sure.

(Nobody is advocating that Apple gets rid of TB3.)

How could I miss this line before.

I mean where do I start. Do we address the simple math issue where 3 is less than five? Nah. Too easy.

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about here.

Right now, the higher-end MacBooks Pro have four Thunderbolt ports. I don't know anyone who actually connects four Thunderbolt devices, or, say, two Thunderbolt devices and two USB-C devices. They either use one or two of those ports, or they just use one, which is a dock or hub, and then that does everything else, and surprise: that "everything else" mostly doesn't involve either Thunderbolt or USB-C at all.

So, nobody seems to use all four. And nobody seems to be saying "if only we had a fifth port".

Therefore, in this hypothetical scenario where Apple sacrifices one Thunderbolt port in favor of a USB-A or HDMI one? I don't think anyone will mind. It will be a net win.

I'm so glad you completely understand the entirety of computer use on the planet, and have deemed that no one needs any more than three TB3 ports, and that HDMI is in fact a universal standard that everyone uses everywhere.

The hypocrisy here is hilarious.

 

[Stephen.R]

Seriously

It’s hard to take anything you say seriously.

you don’t know anyone who uses four tb3 ports so no one does? Great logic there. I don’t personally know anyone who uses hdmi so it’s not needed either then. See how ridiculous that is?

if you think no one will complain/skip the model if it reduces tb3 ports to provide single-use ports, you should go read some of the threads discussing the rumours in question.

 

[chucker23n1]

It’s hard to take anything you say seriously.

you don’t know anyone who uses four tb3 ports so no one does? Great logic there.

Are there people who use four Thunderbolt ports? If at all, probably few.

Are there people who use four USB-C ports, or maybe a mix of Thunderbolt and USB-C ports, four total? Some, I guess.

Are there many, many, many more people who wish one of those ports were USB-A or HDMI? Yes.

I don’t personally know anyone who uses hdmi

Are you serious right now? Because if so, that's more of an indictment on yourself. Like, have you been to any average living room, office, or meeting room from the past decade?

so it’s not needed either then. See how ridiculous that is?

Well, I'm not the one who said it.

if you think no one will complain/skip the model if it reduces tb3 ports to provide single-use ports, you should go read some of the threads discussing the rumours in question.

All I keep seeing, understandably, is people complaining that the 2016-2021 MacBooks Pro lack HDMI, USB-A, and SD. Of those, I don't particularly care about SD, but can see the argument for all of those.

I've never heard anyone other than you complain "oh, well, if it just has three Thunderbolt ports, why even bother!".

 

[Stephen.R]

Are you serious right now? Because if so, that's more of an indictment on yourself. Like, have you been to any average living room, office, or meeting room from the past decade?

yes, and none of them have had a laptop hooked up to their ****ing tv.

Oh sorry no I take that back, my sister in law did for karaoke. Using vga.

you know damn well that I meant on laptops.

All I keep seeing

if you only see what you want to see I can’t help you.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Are there people who use four Thunderbolt ports? If at all, probably few.

Are there people who use four USB-C ports, or maybe a mix of Thunderbolt and USB-C ports, four total? Some, I guess.

Are there many, many, many more people who wish one of those ports were USB-A or HDMI? Yes.



Are you serious right now? Because if so, that's more of an indictment on yourself. Like, have you been to any average living room, office, or meeting room from the past decade?



Well, I'm not the one who said it.



All I keep seeing, understandably, is people complaining that the 2016-2021 MacBooks Pro lack HDMI, USB-A, and SD. Of those, I don't particularly care about SD, but can see the argument for all of those.

I've never heard anyone other than you complain "oh, well, if it just has three Thunderbolt ports, why even bother!".

Whilst I like the concept of having general purpose ports in the form of TB3/USB4, in practice I have little need for 4 x TB ports because I only own a single TB3 device (CalDigit Dock). I can imagine getting an external TB3 SSD or maybe a 10Gps network interface at some point in the future, so maybe I would need 2 or 3 TB3 ports.

When not using a dock, the TB3 ports are exclusively used for external displays, which nearly always have an HDMI input, which currently means a somewhat specialist cable (USB-C to HDMI) or using an adapter plus a standard HDMI cable (readily available).

Having an HMDI output on the Mac loses some flexibility, but will be more convenient for most people I expect.

 

[Roadster Lewis]

FWIW I have never used the HMDI connector on my work Windows laptop, only the USB-C adapter. I'm not fussed about having a HDMI port on the new MBP, but can see that it may be useful to some people.

Was really hoping the 24" would correspond to what goes into the 14" but I unfortunately not. Do you think the lower config of the 30" would take that instead?

I would expect that whatever goes into the 14" MBP will also be available in the 24" iMac as a higher end option. I expect that the bigger iMac, whatever size it is, will get both the options from 14" and 16" MBPs.

 

[machinesworking]

8+2 cores is hardly little on a laptop, though.



I believe the performance difference between the p- and e-core is far more drastic than the slight MHz difference would make you think. I recall a benchmark showing a factor of around 5.

Also, the later these ship, the more likely they are to not have Firestorm/Icestorm cores at all, but rather next generation's cores.

So the P and E core difference, it does matter. Videos showing Logic Pro running at default core allocation, which is to use only the Performance cores VS running with 8 cores selected shows a significant jump in performance. Some things like real time running of plug ins requires pure speed over L2 caches etc. The number I've seen for power difference is 3.2x , so four would result if the numbers stay the same in a theoretical 9 core system VS 8 1/2

I would be perfectly happy paying the possible double amount for the 16" if it's twice as fast. It would be disappointing to me if the lower efficiency core count results in less than a 45% increase in performance, which is possible. Thats all I'm saying.

 

[machinesworking]

It seems weird to me that everyone is so against a couple TB ports on these machines. Laptops are probably not going to get 4 TB ports anytime soon, they wouldn't have their own system bus anyway so it would be just smoke and mirrors. TB for the most part is a connecting to the bus type of deal. Everyone seems to hate dongles or TB hubs etc. but if you use more than 5 or so connections to your desktop hardware then adding in other ports is just a waste.

 

[machinesworking]

I would add, this is just weird logic to me. IMO the only reason Apple will think about adding an HDMI port is because they think there will be a migration of Windows users and have judged the value of having the port VS the backlash if it isn't there. I'm 100% fine with a hub that has 4-6 USB A type ports, a TB3 or two and HDMI etc. I don't look back at unplugging 6+ connections daily with fondness, that's 6+ chances that wear and tear breaks something. A logical configuration for a laptop would be two TB ports and two USB3 type ports, as most things are still in that configuration. A dongle for HDMI is not a deal breaker...

 

[chucker23n1]

So the P and E core difference, it does matter.

Found the benchmark I was thinking of. YMMV and the testing may be flawed (running Geekbench through `taskpolicy -c background`), but assuming this is in the ballpark, the Firestorm p-cores are about 4.25 times as fast as the Icestorm e-cores.

 

[chucker23n1]

It seems weird to me that everyone is so against a couple TB ports on these machines.

Who is, though?

Laptops are probably not going to get 4 TB ports anytime soon,

Higher-end MacBooks Pro have 4 TB ports right now. The potential change being discussed here is whether it might be a net win if they only have two, and the remaining space is instead used for ports such as HDMI.

Everyone seems to hate dongles or TB hubs etc. but if you use more than 5 or so connections to your desktop hardware then adding in other ports is just a waste.

No question, but if you're on the go and just want to connect one or two things real quick, needing a dongle for that isn't great (especially when you forgot to bring one). At a permanent desk, you should absolutely have a hub/dock regardless.

 

[cmChimera]

I actually would be upset with any less than 3 TB ports. I could live with the laptop having an hdmi port. But if they do something like stick a USB-A port on there in lieu of a thunderbolt port, I’d be mad.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I actually would be upset with any less than 3 TB ports. I could live with the laptop having an hdmi port. But if they do something like stick a USB-A port on there in lieu of a thunderbolt port, I’d be mad.

Yes; losing a 40 Gbps multi-purpose port for a 5Gpbs legacy data connector is not a good swap given you can buy a bunch of USB-A to USB-C adapters for a couple of dollars each and stick them on every USB-A device and cable that you own for little outlay.

USB-A will be around for many years but will eventually go the same way as VGA, PS2, mini-USB and CD-ROM. At some point vendors will just stop including it on their machines , and include adapters or extra cables for a transitional period. We’re already seeing fewer peripheral device vendors include USB-A interfaces (e.g. external drives)

 

[chucker23n1]

Yes; losing a 40 Gbps multi-purpose port for a 5Gpbs legacy data connector

USB-A on such a MacBook would be 20 Gbit/s, not 5. Only the Thunderbolt and 3x2 performances levels (both 40 Gbit/s) aren't supported on an A plug.

USB-A will be around for many years but will eventually go the same way as VGA, PS2, mini-USB and CD-ROM. At some point vendors will just stop including it on their machines , and include adapters or extra cables for a transitional period. We’re already seeing fewer peripheral device vendors include USB-A interfaces (e.g. external drives)

Yup.

But… I don't see HDMI going away any time soon. It took a very long time for projectors to move from VGA to HDMI, and it's unclear what they would move to now. They could move to DisplayPort, but virtually nobody has an actual full-size DisplayPort jack (yes, I know desktops exist with them; like I said, virtually nobody), so you need an adapter anyway. They could move to USB-C, but so far, very few displays have done that, and of those, several offer HDMI in addition.

So I think not only is HDMI still hugely useful for "just plug it in to any nearby display" today, but also for easily a decade to come.

 

[Stephen.R]

USB-A on such a MacBook would be 20 Gbit/s, not 5. Only the Thunderbolt and 3x2 performances levels (both 40 Gbit/s) aren't supported on an A plug.

Why do people always make these claims with such confidence. They COULD be 20Gbit/s. There's zero reason to assume they would be 20Gbit/s - the type-A ports on Mac minis are only 5Gbit/s. The type-C ports on the just-released iMacs are only 10Gbit/s.

just plug it in to any nearby display

Unless of course that display is anything Apple has ever sold (either their own, or third parties, such as the LG UltraFines), or essentially anything above 4K resolution, where HDMI is either not present, or limits the display to 4K max.


If they wanted to put HDMI + 2 USB4 Type-C ports on the MacBook Air or the two-port "Pro" 13", so all the yes-men and useless middle management can stroke off about how their laptop is "so professional" in a meeting room, that's fine, do that. It's a net-gain because you're just adding a port. Or **** it, swap a TB3 port if you think they're not necessary. The lack of memory and processor power already makes them unsuitable for demanding workloads anyway, so the lack of ports isn't gonna affect anyone who needs high-speed I/O, because they're already using a better machine anyway.


Removing a port capable of anything, to replace it with one that can do literally one thing, with a subset of devices, makes zero sense on a the top-tier machine.

 

[thenewperson]

I would expect that whatever goes into the 14" MBP will also be available in the 24" iMac as a higher end option. I expect that the bigger iMac, whatever size it is, will get both the options from 14" and 16" MBPs.

I hope so, as that would be nice. My initial thought was that the M1 could go into that hidden 21” model that is still sold for some reason and then 24” can get whatever goes into the 14” MBP. But if it could be a higher tier for then 24” as an option then that’d be fine.

 

[chucker23n1]

Why do people always make these claims with such confidence.

Pot, meet kettle.

They COULD be 20Gbit/s. There's zero reason to assume they would be 20Gbit/s - the type-A ports on Mac minis are only 5Gbit/s. The type-C ports on the just-released iMacs are only 10Gbit/s.

Yes, but those are M1 computers. They don't have enough lanes to do four Thunderbolt lanes, so they probably also don't have enough lanes for 2x2 USB-A.

The M1 is clearly limited in this regard, and is unlikely to be a reasonable basis for the 16-inch MBP, so it isn't a great predictor.

Unless of course that display is anything Apple has ever sold (either their own, or third parties, such as the LG UltraFines),

All of which are extremely niche.

"Yeah, boss, I know we can get two 24-inch displays for $150 each, buuuuuuut what if we got one 27-inch display for $1300! That sounds like a fantastic deal, right? Right?"

I don't know what planet people live on where LG UltraFine pricing is reasonable, but Earth sure isn't it.

or essentially anything above 4K resolution, where HDMI is either not present, or limits the display to 4K max.

HDMI 2.1 can do 100 Hz at 5K with 10 bpc. If the M2 doesn't support HDMI 2.1, which is four years old now, that's on Apple, not on HDMI.

If they wanted to put HDMI + 2 USB4 Type-C ports on the MacBook Air or the two-port "Pro" 13", so all the yes-men and useless middle management can stroke off about how their laptop is "so professional" in a meeting room,

Yeah, how dare people want to actually, gasp, use the product in typical settings.

that's fine, do that. It's a net-gain because you're just adding a port. Or **** it, swap a TB3 port if you think they're not necessary. The lack of memory and processor power already makes them unsuitable for demanding workloads anyway,

16 GiB isn't that little, but yes, it is indeed too little for my needs. As for processing power, the M1 beats most laptops in practice. You'd have to put a Tiger Lake-H45 or a Ryzen 5000 H in there just to compete, and neither seem available in volume yet.

I also don't understand how you're leaping from "used in meeting room" to "needs demanding workloads". For most workplaces, Tiger Lake-UP3 or Ryzen 5000 U is plenty — and the M1 is a delicious cherry on top of those.

Removing a port capable of anything, to replace it with one that can do literally one thing, with a subset of devices, makes zero sense on a the top-tier machine.

Yeah, this is why I replaced all lightswitches with power sockets. Sure, my SO hates how she can't actually switch the light any more, but I could now connect any device, even multiple, including an external light! The flexibility is awesome!

 

[chucker23n1]

I hope so, as that would be nice. My initial thought was that the M1 could go into that hidden 21” model that is still sold for some reason

That model probably mostly exists to hit the $1099 price point (the M1 iMac is $1299).

Next year, I imagine the 21-inch gets dropped, the M1 iMac becomes $1099, and (maybe) an M2 iMac gets added at $1299.

and then 24” can get whatever goes into the 14” MBP. But if it could be a higher tier for then 24” as an option then that’d be fine.

Maybe. That would match what they've done with the iPhone and the MacBooks: you get the regular size (6 inches / 13 inches), and then the Pro at two sizes (6 / 13 + 6.7 / 16 inches).

So, you get the 24-inch iMac, or the 24-inch or 30-inch iMac Pro.

 

[Stephen.R]

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm literally telling you that they could. Do you understand how "could" means "it might, or it might not", and thus is inherently not a claim made with confidence.

Yes, but those are M1 computers.

And the 2018 Intel Mac mini? The 2019 and 2020 iMacs? They're all bandwidth constrained that they can't go above 5Gbps on type-A USB ports are they?

All of which are extremely niche.

Apple computers in general are a niche. You really think it's an unusual thing for Apple to support the displays they themselves "make" (brand) or sell (e.g. LG's), just because those displays are "niche" compared to bottom of the barrel $300 displays? Are you new to Apple products or something?

"Yeah, boss, I know we can get two 24-inch displays for $150 each, buuuuuuut what if we got one 27-inch display for $1300! That sounds like a fantastic deal, right? Right?"

Yeah boss, I know we can get two Dell POS laptops for $300 each, buuuuut what if we got one Mac laptop for $2400! That sounds like a fantastic deal, right? Right?

HDMI 2.1 can do 100 Hz at 5K with 10 bpc. If the M2 doesn't support HDMI 2.1, which is four years old now, that's on Apple, not on HDMI.

HDMI 2.1 can do a backflip if it makes you feel better, that doesn't mean displays support it.

use the product in typical settings

To paraphrase you:
I don't know what planet people live on where "giving a presentation" is a typical use for a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro, but Earth sure isn't it.

16 GiB isn't that little

It's not "little" if your daily activities are:
- middle management ******** emails about synergy;
- give a presentation;
- wax poetic about how great your HDMI port is;

It's ridiculously too little if your daily activities are:
- actually doing development/media related work.

You know, "professional" stuff.

I also don't understand how you're leaping from "used in meeting room" to "needs demanding workloads". For most workplaces, Tiger Lake-UP3 or Ryzen 5000 U is plenty — and the M1 is a delicious cherry on top of those.

Leaping? You people are so ****ing adamant that the highest performing MacBook Pro is the one that needs to sacrifice TB3 port(s) to gain your fetishised HDMI port.

No one said a ****ing peep about the MacBook Air or 13" 2-port MacBook Pro needing HDMI.

Yeah, this is why I replaced all lightswitches with power sockets. Sure, my SO hates how she can't actually switch the light any more, but I could now connect any device, even multiple, including an external light! The flexibility is awesome!

Wow, I don't think you could make a worse analogy if you tried.

 

[chucker23n1]

I'm literally telling you that they could. Do you understand how "could" means "it might, or it might not", and thus is inherently not a claim made with confidence.

We're talking about a rumored product. It might also not exist at all. It might be 18 inches instead of 16. Etc. So, "why are you so confident" is a strange question to ask. It's speculation! The entire thread is speculation!

The previous poster seemed "confident" that it would have 5 Mbit/s. I questioned that. You're correct that it might only have 10, but my speculation is that the M2 will have enough lanes to do 20.

(This is of course all moot since I'm not even expecting it to have USB-A at all.)

And the 2018 Intel Mac mini? The 2019 and 2020 iMacs? They're all bandwidth constrained that they can't go above 5Gbps on type-A USB ports are they?

So what? Why does a three-years-later model automatically have the same limitations?

Apple computers in general are a niche.

They're the fourth-largest vendor, and recently, 8% of PCs worldwide were a Mac. I'd be shocked if the Pro Display XDR and the LG UltraFine together are even 0.8%.

You really think it's an unusual thing for Apple to support the displays they themselves "make" (brand) or sell (e.g. LG's),

No, of course not. It's not an unusual thing. It's just a dumb decision, because coupled with their decision to kill subpixel rendering, it makes macOS rather ugly to look at in a setup where you have any typical office display at all, which is a massive market.

just because those displays are "niche" compared to bottom of the barrel $300 displays? Are you new to Apple products or something?

My first Mac was in 1992, so I guess… kind of?

But guess what: I could use that Mac with any display, and that's what many people will do. Most may use a MacBook Pro without any external display at all (I'm not sure that's true), but many will use it with one that doesn't come close to 5k.

Yeah boss, I know we can get two Dell POS laptops for $300 each, buuuuut what if we got one Mac laptop for $2400! That sounds like a fantastic deal, right? Right?

Touché.

However, a $2400 Dell laptop offers far more tangible benefits than a $2400 monitor.

(I'm also not sure what your point is here. To hell with what IT departments want; Apple should reduce its market share?)

HDMI 2.1 can do a backflip if it makes you feel better, that doesn't mean displays support it.

You know who could solve that problem? Apple. They could do a $800 5K HDMI display. They're just not interested in making one of those themselves. And they can't get LG to produce it in sufficient volume to make that price tag feasible. So what do people do instead? They get a $150 good-enough monitor, or a $300 4K display with slightly too low pixel density.

To paraphrase you:
I don't know what planet people live on where "giving a presentation" is a typical use for a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro, but Earth sure isn't it.

:|

OK, if you think so.

It's not "little" if your daily activities are:
- middle management ******** emails about synergy;
- give a presentation;
- wax poetic about how great your HDMI port is;

It's ridiculously too little if your daily activities are:
- actually doing development/media related work.

You know, "professional" stuff.

Thanks for mansplaining my own use case of my MacBook Pro to me! I had almost forgotten how I actually use this very device in front of me.

Leaping? You people are so ****ing adamant that the highest performing MacBook Pro is the one that needs to sacrifice TB3 port(s) to gain your fetishised HDMI port.

Does it "need to"? No. Is a 3 TB + 1 HDMI port setup more useful than 4 TB? Yeah. I'm baffled that you find that controversial. They only two reasons Apple didn't do that:

• it makes the device thicker, and at the time, Apple was in crazytown where they thought shipping a Butterfly keyboard on their top-of-the-line laptop was acceptable
• it's not symmetric

Like, yes, it's kinda nice to have two TB ports on each side. But I just cannot imagine you'd find many people who prefer that over instead having just one (oh no!) TB on one port, two on the other, and then one HDMI port.

Wow, I don't think you could make a worse analogy if you tried.

I think it's spot-on, frankly. What you're advocating for is to have four ports that are extremely flexible, but by themselves don't do much useful. What I'm advocating for is for one of those ports to directly connect a display.

 

[Stephen.R]

The previous poster seemed "confident" that it would have 5 Mbit/s. I questioned that.

My point is that your phrasing was not: USB Type-A supports up to 20Gbps, and the M1 Mac mini supports 10Gbps on type-A ports.

Your phrasing was:

USB-A on such a MacBook would be 20 Gbit/s, not 5

That isn't a hypothetical "it might be X, if it exists at all".

So what? Why does a three-years-later model automatically have the same limitations?

They're all machines that were released after USB3.2, but with non-entry level CPUs.

They're the fourth-largest vendor, and recently, 8% of PCs worldwide were a Mac. I'd be shocked if the Pro Display XDR and the LG UltraFine together are even 0.8%.

Thanks for confirming they're a niche.

It's just a dumb decision

Supporting the devices they sell, is dumb? OK, great logic there.

But guess what: I could use that Mac with any display

And you can use a 2016-2020 MBP15/16 with any display: HDMI, DVI, DP, TB3, USB-C. You pick the combination you want, up to 4, at 4K, or 2 at 5K/6K.

Swapping a universal port for a HDMI port, doesn't bring any new functionality - it removes functionality, to give a subset of users (and predominantly, the lower end of users) slight convenience, maybe.

You know who could solve that problem? Apple. They could do a $800 5K HDMI display.

... you think the UltraFine 5K costs $1300 because it's TB3, not HDMI?

The reason no one makes high resolution HDMI displays, is because, WAIT FOR IT, there's **** all computers that can drive the god damn thing, because HDMI is near-constantly behind DisplayPort in terms of bandwidth, resolution and features, because it's driven by the needs of TV and home theatre equipment makers.

(I'm also not sure what your point is here. To hell with what IT departments want; Apple should reduce its market share?)

You asked why someone would pay more, for a better display. For the same reason someone would pay more for a better laptop. Because it's better.

OK, if you think so.

You think people spend $5K on a laptop, to give a presentation that could be run from a $500 years-old iPad?

Thanks for mansplaining my own use case of my MacBook Pro to me!

You people seem quite happy to presume that everyone needs HDMI, and that no one needs 4 TB3/USB4 ports. Turn about is fair play.

Is a 3 TB + 1 HDMI port setup more useful than 4 TB? Yeah.

TO YOU. Jesus ****ing christ how can't you even acknowledge "someone else has different a different use case".

I'll wait for the inevitable "you're selfish too".

But here's the rub that you people never, never manage to acknowledge, never manage to accept. Or the few times you do, you literally claim "that must be a made-up use-case".

A TB3 port can absolutely provide you HDMI. It can provide you two of the ****ers if you want. It can even provide you god damn HDMI2.1 on a recent machine (i.e. it has DP 1.4 support). It can do all of that right ****ing now.


A HDMI port can't do **** if you don't use HDMI. It's a glorified dust collector, that comes at the cost of actual connectivity.

What I'm advocating for is for one of those ports to directly connect a display.

Yeah, for exactly 1, low-end display... because you don't want to use a different cable.

 

[cknlol]

You think people spend $5K on a laptop, to give a presentation that could be run from a $500 years-old iPad?

Starts at $2k already, but yes they do.
Why? I don't know. How do I know? I'm working for such a Fortune 500.

 

[Stephen.R]

Starts at $2k already, but yes they do.

The i5 13" MacBook Pro? Not at all what I was talking about mate.

 

[machinesworking]

I actually would be upset with any less than 3 TB ports. I could live with the laptop having an hdmi port. But if they do something like stick a USB-A port on there in lieu of a thunderbolt port, I’d be mad.

Here's the deal though, the system bus is probably really only capable of handling two full blast throughput TB4 ports to begin with. The other ports are just window dressing. So something like two TB ports plus two low power USBA or C style ports makes the most sense. 99% of us that use a ton of outboard hardware with laptops use hubs. I'd just rather have the two extra ports acknowledged as lower speed then have a bunch of ports potentially swapping power when someone attempts something that the bus can't handle. There are cases in the past of various TB and USB3 ports getting varied amounts of system bus power and even juice, this is IMO directly due to pandering to lowest common denominator type "configurations". This is why I'm 100% OK with just two TB4 ports and a couple low power A or C ports over a bunch of placebo ports. Apple doesn't sell any HDMI displays, so I wouldn't count on that rumor being true. Again the only reason would be to lure Windows users over, I think the fear or reluctance to use dongles is just an internet phenomena, I'm much happier with high powered ports and a hub than unplugging 6+ connectors etc. The main point of a USB-A port is a lot of people use USB-A devices, personally again I'm fine with just two no compromise TB4 ports and more is fine, as long as there's no BS like with USB3 where you want to use the one farthest from the power connector because it's getting more juice...

 

[cmChimera]

Here's the deal though, the system bus is probably really only capable of handling two full blast throughput TB4 ports to begin with. The other ports are just window dressing. So something like two TB ports plus two low power USBA or C style ports makes the most sense.

I’m not sure how many ports can be run at full speed on the 16” MacBook Pro, but for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s 2. I’d still want to versatility of having that ability from either side of the laptop (and it’d still be faster than most usb-a ports) I find hdmi useful as long as TVs continue to use hdmi, so I’d be ok replacing one with hdmi, because the convenience may outweigh the cost there. USB-a is a dumb port. It should go away. I don’t want it, and wouldn’t use it. If anyone needs a legacy port like that, they can use an adapter.