Why in the world would you do that?
For a few percent more CPU power and the same graphics performance?
My advice: Don't.
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.
References to Next-Generation MacBook Pro Models Discovered in macOS 10.12.4 Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why in the world would you do that?
For a few percent more CPU power and the same graphics performance?
My advice: Don't.
Mac-B4831CEBD52A0C4C would likely be for two new 13-inch MacBook Pro models with function keys. The models would likely have Kaby Lake processors with a maximum Turbo Boost of 3400 MHz and 4000 MHz respectively.
Mac-CAD6701F7CEA0921 would likely be for three new 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar models. These notebooks would likely have Kaby Lake processors with a maximum Turbo Boost of 3500/3700 MHz and 4000 MHz respectively.
Mac-551B86E5744E2388 would likely be for three new 15-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar models. These notebooks would likely have Kaby Lake processors with a maximum Turbo Boost of 3800/3900 MHz and 4100 MHz respectively.The blog said it checked the performance bias setting of each motherboard and determined that they are unlikely to be for desktop models such as the iMac and Mac Pro. There is also no GPU data as of yet.
Interesting but I would think that we would see new desktops before a laptop rev. So I'm going to cross my fingers that new iMacs and Minis will be here soon with Kaby Lake
So which three do you consider the most important, and why exactly would they be "trash"?
Yes, sorry forgot the entry-level 2012 retina MBP came with a dGPU. There are two lines that can be compared over time (1) price of entry level and (2) price of cheapest model with dGPU. And these two lines sometimes converge and sometimes diverge.
[doublepost=1486514464][/doublepost]
Argh, Apple keeps changing two many variables from year to year. Sorry for messing this up.
I just said: CPU, GPU and RAM.
Apple uses none of the latest (or even best of it's generation) and RAM is still limited to just 16gb on a laptop that's called 'Pro'.
Then what is Polaris 10, if not the latest? Especially those Radeon Pro GPUs were just unveiled alongside the MBP itself. On a TDP of 35 W, there by far isn't any other GPU that can compete.
And what were i7-6700HQ, i7-6820HQ and i7-6920HQ back in october when the MBP came out? Exactly, the latest and most powerful notebook GPUs. The corresponding Kaby Lakes weren't unveiled until CES last month.
What exactly makes 2133 MHz LPDDR3 RAM not good enough for you? That's the fastest DDR3 spec, and I don't know of any notebook yet that ships with DDR4-2400 MHz or higher which would be faster... If you really belong to the small minority that needs 32 GB of RAM in a notebook, too bad, just hold off til the next one.
Now tell me again: How is any of this "trash"? You must be trolling.
I'm hoping they will hit the Refurbished store in the next couple of months. Price should be about $200 lower.
Hard to keep track!
I'd suggest the Mid-2014/15 mid level models have represented the best "value" insofar as that term applies to Apple.
The difference is NOT so negligible as you have suggested when it comes to 4K encoding. It's quite significant, similar to the difference between dedicated and indiscreet graphic cards.
Guess I'll just sweat over upgrading then. 2017's will have the better battery, faster processor, and prob better graphics.
You could be 100% correct but it doesn't appear to matter to Apple's bottom line.
The Most Cash Apple Has Ever Had
Fox Business
"You'd think that after returning over $200 billion in cash to investors through its capital return program over the past five years, that there'd be a sizable dent in Apple's money mountain. You'd be wrong.
To be clear, Apple's cash position would certainly be about $200 billion more if it weren't for the program, but the fact still stands that Apple generates so much cash that it simply can't give that money back fast enough. Operating cash flow was $65.8 billion in fiscal 2016, which ended in September. Even after deducting $12.8 billion in capital expenditures, the Mac maker enjoyed $53 billion in free cash flow -- leaving plenty to cover the $12.2 billion paid out in dividends and dividend equivalents and buying back $30 billion worth of stock. The same is true for the most recent fiscal first quarter.
Here's the thing: It's also true for almost every year since Apple started returning capital. Capital returns have exceeded 100% of free cash flow in only one fiscal year since the program commenced (2014, and only by about 12%). The net result is that despite the massive amounts of capital being returned, Apple now has the most cash it's ever had on the balance sheet. For a company that loves superlatives as much as Apple does, it's almost surprising that it didn't point this out on last month's earnings call."
CUDA and OpenCL functionally do the same thing, but CUDA has significantly more optimized and functional libraries than OpenCL. OpenCL will catch up in time, but for now AI, image processing, etc are much easier and faster with CUDA. For example, Tesla autonomous driving is developed with CUDA. OpenCL will work on both AMD and Nvidia, but CUDA only works on Nvidia.
Apple is terrible now. They used to be the counter culture. Now they are a social justice preaching company catering to 12$ latte drinkers headed to the nearest Trump protest.
I am currently managing 15x $1+ million dollar projects on a late 2013 MBP.
Tell me again about the new Mac Book Amateur and how I am not a professional.
Wait Kabylake can only do desktop ram right? Would that imply that if they're going to go to 32gb in the next refresh with kaby, and honestly moving towards 32gb sounds like it was in response to backlash for the laptops not being pro enough.. since desktop ram is twice the size of laptop ram are they going to stick with the current smaller battery? instead of adopting the original form fit battery that didnt make it to the late-2016 model? I would imagine the size there is going to be a trade off, but also desktop grade ram is more power hungry.
I don't tell anybody how to spend their money, but in real world usage, I'm not sure you'll notice a significant different. These MacBooks are so well optimized, that the upgrade won't noticably impact work flow.
[doublepost=1486527330][/doublepost]It's too bad a 15" nTB and 13" nTB with 4 ports aren't options. Even if there was no additional cost, I prefer not having the TB ... like the physical function keys and better battery life.
[doublepost=1486528069][/doublepost]
Applied a corporate discount (8%) and picked up at the Christiana Mall (gigantic store) in Wilmington, DE to avoid sales tax, so I saved about $300 .... Great laptop and perfect for my workflow needs, but there's no debating the price is absurd, even with the discount.
People build "Hacks" for a wide variety of reasons.
And if they wanted to give Apple the Finger, why would they throw themselves neck-deep into Apple's "ecosystem"?
No, the people that truly want to F*** Apple generally will build that Hack; but will be r
Inning Linux on it. Because, uh, Freedom.
A lot of People like my long time Apple friend, Degreed EE, and builder of about three or four Hacks does it for a very simple reason: Money. Or lack thereof. If he needed a Mac Pro to do anything more than putter around with it, he'd likely get the real thing; but since he already has a 2016 MBP 15 (which he loves), an iPad of some sort, plus an older MBP, a couple of G5 towers (retired), etc. plus his wife has an iMac, a MBP and some sort of iPad,he figured he'd "done his part", and so has built a few Hacks... But in no way is he wringing his hands together and doing the sinister laugh.
I disagree with other manufacturers being as obsessed with thinness. HP's newest Spectre is actually slightly thicker to accommodate the additional ports. I also believe the new XPS 15 is about the same size as its predecessor.
I also put the touch bar in the gimmick category. I personally prefer the extra battery life and physical keys, so maybe that's why I have that opinion. I've read many reviews and posts that disagree with me though.
Personally, at least for my applications, software hasn't suffered. I do know a few people that moved from FCP to Premiere, but I still like Apples options. I also think people have exaggerated the MBP being undespecced. On paper, yeah, but as was evidenced when I bought an XPS, Windows laptops aren't nearly as efficient. I'm sure there are plenty of tests out there that would contradict that statement, but that's been my experience.
The only issue I have with Apple is not updating the Mac Pro, Mini and iMac. I could point to a few other things like not having quick charge for iPhone (which I don't use ... Nexus 6p) and I do think they need to remember that people don't just use iPhones to use iPhones. A lot of people use them cause they have an iMac, or a MacBook and prefer the ecosystem. Not prioritising certain products that are further down the totem pole in profitability might seem like the right thing on paper, but I personally feel allocating more resources than they've done recently would be better for the long term health of the brand as a whole.
[doublepost=1486532062][/doublepost]
No doubt you're right that a faster processor, GPU and RAM would be improvements, but I stop short at using the word "universally."
Me and you are the exception, not the norm. 8GB RAM and current GPU/processing speeds are more than sufficient for 99% of Apple's target market.
Most people in the wild, at least the ones I run into, call any non iPhone an Android, have no clue what a Nexus 6p is, couldn't tell you what SSD means, and have no clue what the difference is between their MacBook and my MacBook Pro. The only thing they care about is cost, aesthetics, and that it can accommodate their very basic computing needs.
Despite the Pro in the name, Apple wants nothing to do with a large number of professional users. I think they've made that clear a long time ago.
So for you, it might fall short of what you consider a good computer, but I think the large majority of "pro" users Apple targets would disagree with your assessment.
Last edited:
Has an overpriced 2016 MBP, an iPad, another MBP, two G5 towers and a wife with an iMac, a MBP and another iPad....
And he lacks money?
LMAO!!!!
Such has always been the natural order of things. The counter culture remains mainstream. Apple goes from challenging the status quo to becoming part of that new status quo.
Only a fool believes Apple will forever remain the scrappy upstart.
2016 MBP was a rushed release; additions to betas just means testing.
Expect Mid(or late)-2017 MBP as closer to what engineering originally envisioned.
Thanks to courage™ in the
Marketing Team, new (i)Macs may be pushed back in favor of another MBP.
Last edited: