Good point.
I'm not saying Apple should have made the 2016 MBP with up to 32GB of RAM, but doing so would have made the 2016 MBP a more suitable option for the professional that the "Pro" line of Macs were geared towards in the past.
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.
So Apple essentially lied about 32 GB RAM in MBP
- Thread starter Nik
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not saying Apple should have made the 2016 MBP with up to 32GB of RAM, but doing so would have made the 2016 MBP a more suitable option for the professional that the "Pro" line of Macs were geared towards in the past.
Uh...I worked at a major content producer for two years. Somehow they managed to produce tens of thousands of hours of content across multiple channels and platforms on those machines, but I guess they’re not pros in your eyes.
Just like 15 years ago, content was being produced with just 1GB of RAM.
Maybe they use those machines because that was what was available?
If the content producer you are referring to had access to MBPs that were capable of 32GBs of RAM in 2016, would they rather use the 16GB ones?
I clearly remember as an intern with the faster early 11 15” with dedicated gfx, quad core etc. I had, had to be used for “important” things the boss and co-workers macs couldn’t because they had a lower spec’ed MacBook Pro 13/155 and even 17” 2010/2011. Everyone was struggling with rendering times, poor performance etc. back then if at all trying on to really work on laptops...nowadays that story is quite different, but don’t think for a many production houses and independents working with high demand stuff, don’t lust for more ram and faster systems overall. Does that mean many at this point are not satisfied with previous gen speeds and cannot produce content with 16gb ram or even 8? No, and nobody is claiming that, so kinda pointless to mention.
It all depends on what you’re producing. 1080p content in FCPX? 16GB is fine. I’m not saying that is the use scenario in the company you worked for, but the point is certainly 16GB of RAM is fine for some users but for others, it certainly is not. 32GB of RAM is a welcome addition for many workflows.
The one who is "essentially lying" is you, since Phil Schiller never said such a thing. What he said is that they decided to use LPDDR3 instead of DDR4 for the 2016 model due to battery life concerns. afir93 post provides the correct quote.
The marginal increase of battery capacity alone is very unlikely to cancel out the increased power demands of DDR4 over LPDDR3 in low energy states.
My guess is that they managed to improve the energy efficiency of the entire system somehow, allowing them to use more power hungry RAM. Also, I suppose that they use some sort of particularly energy efficient DDR4 (one hint is the frequency, which is lower then other 2018 DDR4 laptops). Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the battery life under lightweight tasks will suffer a small dip. Hopefully teardowns and tests will tell us more.
Overall, the entire thing is obviously a marketing plot, to counteract the vocal minority who is claiming that Apple does not make "pro level laptops". From performance standpoint, the difference between DDR4 2400 and LPDDR3 2133 is negligible Overall, Apple wins — they get to sell you cheaper RAM at the same price point, the critics are silenced, and the few users who need 32GB can get it (for a quite ridiculous premium). All of it is probably enough to cover the costs of the R&D needed to move from LPDDR3 to DDR4.
But doesn’t the fact of having double the ram help overall in terms of the system needing to run the same things as before ? I think y’all are jumping to conclusions and probably in real world use the different added speed upgrades overall will result in improved power on use time, with the potential of running much more demanding stuff if and when you need it, which then might result in similar or perhaps even worse results if running full on much higher demand tasks than you where and could with the previous models.
No, it doesn't. The thing with memory is that it doesn't really matter how much you have as long as you have enough to fit in the active task. There is this common misconception that having more RAM will allow you to process data faster. This is not true. It depends on your algorithms and how you access the data. Besides, CPU memory controllers have only that much RAM bandwidth, not to mention that addressing large amounts of RAM randomly will stall the the CPU due to cache loads (the new i9 is of course more capable here because it has larger cache).
P.S. I am a pro user by any definition of the word — I write rather complex software and I work with large datasets on my laptop. I will be getting the 16GB version, since I see no benefit for me in having more RAM, and I'd like to keep my battery life. For tasks that require more active memory, we have a supercomputer with 4TB of RAM
Although that is a mess to program if you want it to run efficiently.
No, it doesn't. The thing with memory is that it doesn't really matter how much you have as long as you have enough to fit in the active task. There is this common misconception that having more RAM will allow you to process data faster. This is not true. It depends on your algorithms and how you access the data. Besides, CPU memory controllers have only that much RAM bandwidth, not to mention that addressing large amounts of RAM randomly will stall the the CPU due to cache loads (the new i9 is of course more capable here because it has larger cache).
P.S. I am a pro user by any definition of the word — I write rather complex software and I work with large datasets on my laptop. I will be getting the 16GB version, since I see no benefit for me in having more RAM, and I'd like to keep my battery life. For tasks that require more active memory, we have a supercomputer with 4TB of RAM
Thanks for clearing that up. So no i9 nor 32gb for me sounds like the wise choice, since one would accompany the other better, I'd find it better to just save the dough and not get either of those upgrades for my pocket and needs, though I still need to see some tests before I can fully decide...(but nice to know about the cache stuff, makes sense...even makes sense they kept the 8gb on the 13" as the base option, althought pricing could have been better)
THIS SO MUCH!
DDR4, required a more space-efficient battery than was available at the time OR a physically larger battery. So, yes, in 2016, it was totally about thickness It's not like your DDR4 implementation HAS to be LPDDR4...
No, it doesn't. The thing with memory is that it doesn't really matter how much you have as long as you have enough to fit in the active task. There is this common misconception that having more RAM will allow you to process data faster. This is not true. It depends on your algorithms and how you access the data. Besides, CPU memory controllers have only that much RAM bandwidth, not to mention that addressing large amounts of RAM randomly will stall the the CPU due to cache loads (the new i9 is of course more capable here because it has larger cache).
P.S. I am a pro user by any definition of the word — I write rather complex software and I work with large datasets on my laptop. I will be getting the 16GB version, since I see no benefit for me in having more RAM, and I'd like to keep my battery life. For tasks that require more active memory, we have a supercomputer with 4TB of RAM
Are you trying to tell me that the 16GB MLBs draw (noticeably) more power than the 32GB MLBs, because I call shenanigans on that.
Well..... there you go folks.
^^
From a person who isn't going to buy a laptop with 32GB of RAM, more worried about a past statement of why it wouldn't happen rather than it actually happening.
Wife - "I love you"
Ex-Wife - "I don't love you"
Ex-Husband - "You lied to me!!1"
Ex-Wife - "Move on already"
The i9 is still going to be faster, regardless of whether you use 16GB or 32GB, and depending on your software and tasks, the 32GB might make sense without the i9. As usual, its about your needs. I will definitely get the i9, but I don't need 32GB of RAM.
Nope! Apparently, you are not considered a Pro unless you need the same exact specs as the poster complaining about these being "pro".
There are some pros that need SLI $5,000 NVIDIA Quadro GPUs. You don't? Then you are not a pro!
There are some pros that need 128GB of RAM. You don't? Then you are not a pro!
I have said this before and I will say this again - The term pro in product lines ONLY means enhanced or better than the non-pro model. As in these systems are better than the basic Macbook. THAT IS ALL. Same with Surface vs Surface Pro. Can an 8K video editor use a Surface Pro? It is the same as the PS4 and PS4 Pro.
[doublepost=1531579179][/doublepost]
What Leman said in regards to RAM is correct. You only really benefit with more RAM if you are constantly having high memory pressure and getting excessive paging issues. For example, giving my parents a computer with 64GB of RAM when they just use Microsoft Word has no benefits over giving them a computer with 4-8 GB of RAM. It will mostly go to waste.
Now when you are using software like Adobe After Effects, keep in mind that those types of software make use out of every spare GB of RAM you have no matter what is installed. I can max out 16 GB or 128 GB using Adobe After Effects. It does not mean I need more than 128 GB of RAM, it is just that the software is designed to use as much ram as available to it.
Some of you forget that this is a direct result of ongoing delays of the technology, and that 32 GB was supposed to be out years and years ago. LPDDR4 support was support to be available back in 2016! Thus, it stands to reason that Apple intended to support 32 GB as early as 2016 with Cannonlake 10 nm chipsets back then, but then the delays hit.
At first the delay was suggesting a 2017 release which would allow 32 GB LPDDR4x but then as time went on it became clear that 2017 was unrealistic. Then it was said it'd be 2018, and now we're looking at 2019 for these chipsets to land. That's a full 3 year delay.
Obviously this was untenable and so Apple it the bullet and went with DDR4 at higher power, with improvements in battery density and packaging, but with the disadvantage (from their perspective) of higher component costs. And the jury is still out on actual battery life since we don't have battery life benchmarks yet.
I suspect once LPDDR4 32 GB actually does become available, Apple will simply switch back to it, and may even reduce the battery size to compensate and save money.
Mind you, when Apple switched the iPad 2 from 45 mm to 32 nm, they kept the battery size the same, which meant the new 32 nm models got significantly longer battery life. It's possible Apple could take this route too.
At first the delay was suggesting a 2017 release which would allow 32 GB LPDDR4x but then as time went on it became clear that 2017 was unrealistic. Then it was said it'd be 2018, and now we're looking at 2019 for these chipsets to land. That's a full 3 year delay.
Obviously this was untenable and so Apple it the bullet and went with DDR4 at higher power, with improvements in battery density and packaging, but with the disadvantage (from their perspective) of higher component costs. And the jury is still out on actual battery life since we don't have battery life benchmarks yet.
I suspect once LPDDR4 32 GB actually does become available, Apple will simply switch back to it, and may even reduce the battery size to compensate and save money.
Mind you, when Apple switched the iPad 2 from 45 mm to 32 nm, they kept the battery size the same, which meant the new 32 nm models got significantly longer battery life. It's possible Apple could take this route too.