Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The base speeds are so low I assumed it was a low power mode for quietness and battery life.

So in a perfect environment and a 100% load, how is turbo boost supposed to behave in term of activating and deactivating?

The base clock speeds for the 45w TDP H-Series have hovered between 2.0GHz and 3.1GHz for the past ten years. It wasn't until the 7th and really, 8th Gen and now 9th Gen that Intel had the chutzpah to publish these ludicrous Turbo Boost speeds of 4.8 and 5.0GHz. It might be little more believable if we had desktop CPU that had Turbo Boost frequencies that hovered in the 6-7GHz range, but that has been proven to be nigh impossible without liquid nitrogen cooling.

As Intel has upped the core count, the base clock speed goes down as a function of the amount of heat generated in order to keep the CPU within the bounds of its TDP. Intel has no business advertising a 5.0GHz Turbo Boost, especially in its mobile CPU lineups. By its very design, a 15w, 28w or 45w TDP CPU is designed to go in a portable device, which have faced design constraints and engineering tradeoffs ever since the PowerBook 100 was released. The Core i9-8950HK is the perfect example of this...there are laptops easily twice as thick as any MacBook Pro ever produced that have trouble handling this CPU in its unlocked form. Frankly, an unlocked mobile CPU has to be the most idiotic thing Intel has ever released. And on top of that, Intel is quoting Turbo Boost speeds that many of its CPUs with over twice the TDP cannot sustain on a 24x7 basis in desktop form without some sort of liquid cooling.

In a perfect environment, I wouldn't be using a 45w TDP CPU with the inherent thermal restrictions that a smaller form factor entails, I would be using a 95w TDP CPU or higher in a larger tower case that would most likely have some sort of liquid cooling to run at it's optimal clock speed unrestricted.

Bottom line, there is no perfect environment for a 45w TDP CPU as they are designed for mobile devices, which are inherently a compromised design with regards to performance versus form factor. Cores plus TDP restrict clock speed.

My benchmark is that Apple (actually, any PC OEM) needs to be able to maintain Intel's base clock speed on the fastest/hottest CPU 24x7 in the chassis it is designed to go into for sale. Apple seems to be doing that just fine with the 8-core MacBook Pros. Again, the Turbo Boost speeds are icing on the cake, they are not realistic speeds to expect any PC OEM to maintain 24x7, even in single core. Anyone buying a MacBook Pro for ultimate performance is missing the point or the fact that all mobile design entail compromise. Weight, size, thickness, battery life, materials, heat generation, durability are all factors that have to be weighed and balanced.
 
The problem is that Apple used to sell a 1680x1050 option on the 15-inch, and the 17-inch was 1920x1200. You can still set those resolutions (@2x) on the Retina MacBook Pros, but they're now scaled. A case can be made that 1440x900 @ 2x, while very high-res in 2012, really isn't any more in 2019.

It's particularly ridiculous for the models where Apple defaults to a non-native scaling.

Moving the 15.4" to 3360x210(1680x1050@2x) would increase the PPI to 257.29 according to https://www.sven.de/dpi/ which is probably just fine for the Radeon Pro and Vega GPUs in the current model and allow Apple to move the 13" to 2880x1800 (1440x900@2x). The real trick comes with giving us a 17" MacBook Pro at 3840x2400 (1920x1200@2x) which ends up being 9,216,000 pixels, or nearly 78% more pixels than the 2880x1800 resolution of the current 15" MBP. It would definitely take a thicker chassis, which a Vega 20 as the default base GPU, preferably something even beefier then that. I think its remotely possible, but it seems unlikely that we'll get that 17" MacBook Pro we would really rather have...oh, well.
 
I'm not sure why the 15~" vs 16~" has been such a sticking point for people; it's the chassis size that affects portability, not the screen size. If a 16~" screen fits in the same 15~" chassis (thin bezels, rounded corners, etc..) then that's amazing.

Seeing how many previously 13" PC models are now fitting 14" displays in *even smaller* chassis sizes, that's what I hope is the case here.

I'm looking forward to see what really comes when these are released (this year or whenever..); I've got my work issued machine and probably won't be in the market for a new computer for quite some time, though I may be able to swing it internally as a custom order.. (hmm).
 
Why do you say that? I'm very sensitive to text clarity, and I've found this progressively increases as I go from a 94 ppi external monitor (1020 x 1080 Dell 2408 WFP 24" Ultrasharp), to a 163 ppi external monitor (Dell 27" P2715Q 4K), to my MBP's internal display (221 ppi). It seems that if your (thus far unsupported) assertion were true, MacOS would have particular trouble with my 4K display compared to the other two, but that's not the case.

I'm not happy with the removal of subpixel rendering from Mojave (so I've stuck with High Sierra), but that's a separate issue.
macOS is not well suited to run on a 27" 4K because if you run it at @1x everything will be much smaller than normal, and if you run it at @2x everything will be much larger than normal, where "normal" is that what gives you the apparent sizes everything was designed for by Apple. For example you can't change the (font) size of the menu bar in order to get the same apparent size, using a few more pixels, on a 27" 4K as you get on a normal 27" 1440p display. The only possibility is to use the whole-screen-scaling that, while having the desired effect, is less than ideal due to scaling artifacts and increased resource usage.
[doublepost=1564005556][/doublepost]
The problem is that Apple used to sell a 1680x1050 option on the 15-inch, and the 17-inch was 1920x1200. You can still set those resolutions (@2x) on the Retina MacBook Pros, but they're now scaled. A case can be made that 1440x900 @ 2x, while very high-res in 2012, really isn't any more in 2019.

It's particularly ridiculous for the models where Apple defaults to a non-native scaling.
Fully agree, and I really miss the 1680x1050 on the 15".
 
I think 2020's going to be a very big year---re-designed iMacs, iPhones and MacBooks, plus perhaps an ARM MacBook.

nowadays all comments is about. "next year" "next one" "soon". every year we talk about next year will be a big one the redesign and it has failed to delivery for few years now
 
I think his reminder still stands. To me, the “1st gen product” concern isn’t that you won’t like it after 14 days or that it will have a manufacturing defect appear within 1 year. For me it’d be more longevity concerns, and for Gen2 to have significant improvements based on feedback/experience with the new form factor.
To me, the more compelling reason to skip the First Gen is not because of defects, but missing features.

I’ve regretted purchasing most Apple 1st Gen products because the 2nd Gen inevitably includes newly added and highly desirable features. This happened with the original Retina MacBook Pro (2nd Gen added 802.11ac WiFi and 2x faster Flash storage), original iPod Touch (2nd Gen added an extremely useful physical volume control), 1st Gen iPad Pro (no P3 wide color or True Tone),

2nd Gen’s I’m GLAD I WAITED FOR: 2015 5k iMac which added the greater superior P3 Wide color display; and the 2017 MacBook Pro update with its superior Kaby Lake processors, and somewhat improved Butterfly keyboard. But, I’ve since sold this and bought the 2018 MacBook Air Retina, and this is one 1st Gen I didn’t regret, since the 2019 revision, while it did add True Tone, significantly downgraded the SSD speed.

As for the 16” MBP, when the 2020 revision appears with some new awesome, necessary feature, $3000 worth of buyer’s remorse is going to HUGELY suck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wags
I know this is wishful thinking on my part, but it would be cool if Apple made its Macbooks modular again (i.e., add my own RAM, SSD, battery, etc...). To me, modularity was a very appealing quality of Macbooks from back in the day...


The fact that nowadays MacBook Pros are not modular is the number 1 reason I've postponed upgrading my 2013 MBP for several years now.
Are you reading this Apple?!? Take note! No monies for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: falkon-engine
I don't understand why it's confusing.

Set your budget and requirements and then go shopping. Compare and contrast the different features of whichever 13" device against your requirements.

Not trying to be a smartarse, I genuinely don't understand why it's confusing.

It's not so much the lineup as
- the irregular updates
- have to wait for reviews to understand subtle differences that are only apparent after using because specs don't communicate them (e.g. different SSD speeds despite size, keyboard feels different, display quality/PWM issues that are not mentioned in the specs, etc.)

I just don't remember being this confused when I bought my first macbook pro in 2010. Now, I can spend hours researching the machines and yet it feels like I will be disappointed no matter what I get.

I was getting headaches with the 2.4 display, a problem I did not have with my 2017 nTB. I have now up'ed the brightness after understanding the PWM issue and it feels better. But without deeper research, there would be no way to know. Had I known about this before making the purchase, I likely would not have bought it. And the only reason I upgraded to the 2019 was the keyboard. If the keyboard wasn't so loud on the 2017, I would have held on to it. Now in 3 months if the redesign the 13" with a new keyboard that feels even better, I will want to upgrade yet again.

Hence my comment that it's confusing and perhaps a better strategy is to buy a cheap configuration and keep upgrading instead of trying to buy and hold for a long period of time.
 
Regardless of how good the screen is, with the butterfly keyboard and complete lack of any ports except USB-C/TB3 the MBP isn't a machine I will be buying. Fix the keyboard so it actually has some travel and so it doesn't break, and put some legacy ports in there too so I don't have to carry any dongles and I'll buy.
 
The fact that they don't mention the 15" MacBook I'm wondering if the 16" will replace the 15" but in the same size machine. We still have some borders on the 15" so it could be possible to expand to make it a 16"..
 
Will they throttle?
They'll throttle you on the price :)
But I think if they do have this as a "Pro's Pro" then it'll come with 512GB standard @ $/2999/Eur/GBP (as that's an small incremental cost to them, maintaining margins)... maybe they could even push 32GB/512GB @ $3299 (don't think $2999 keeps the margin) and then it looks like a "value" and a real Pro's Pro (upgradable to 64GB RAM like the ThinkPad X1 Carbon would even be better... and given it'd be a 500-700 upgrade a good additional revenue/margin opportunity
 
That's an absurd exaggeration.

What makes the MacBook Pro a standout machine is:

1. macOS
2. macOS
3. macOS
4. Portability

I'm not going to mention the things people lament because they are tired, boring, irrelevant and uninteresting.

(This is no way refers to the keyboard disaster that everyone knows needs fixing)
Uh huh... So by your logic the only MacBook Apple needs to offer is the (discontinued) 12"... it satisfies all 4 (and #4 the best of all MacBooks).
 
It's not so much the lineup as
- the irregular updates
- have to wait for reviews to understand subtle differences that are only apparent after using because specs don't communicate them (e.g. different SSD speeds despite size, keyboard feels different, display quality/PWM issues that are not mentioned in the specs, etc.)

I just don't remember being this confused when I bought my first macbook pro in 2010. Now, I can spend hours researching the machines and yet it feels like I will be disappointed no matter what I get.

I was getting headaches with the 2.4 display, a problem I did not have with my 2017 nTB. I have now up'ed the brightness after understanding the PWM issue and it feels better. But without deeper research, there would be no way to know. Had I known about this before making the purchase, I likely would not have bought it. And the only reason I upgraded to the 2019 was the keyboard. If the keyboard wasn't so loud on the 2017, I would have held on to it. Now in 3 months if the redesign the 13" with a new keyboard that feels even better, I will want to upgrade yet again.

Hence my comment that it's confusing and perhaps a better strategy is to buy a cheap configuration and keep upgrading instead of trying to buy and hold for a long period of time.

I agree about the specs and reviews. It’s very tough to get accurate information. The Apple related sites tend to go for the approach of getting a review up quickly, as opposed to getting up a through review, and often the miss key details, or get them wrong. And Apple’s “tech specs” summary is pretty weak.
 
The problem is that Apple used to sell a 1680x1050 option on the 15-inch, and the 17-inch was 1920x1200. You can still set those resolutions (@2x) on the Retina MacBook Pros, but they're now scaled. A case can be made that 1440x900 @ 2x, while very high-res in 2012, really isn't any more in 2019.
Just set your resolution manually to a non-scaled resolution, and enjoy the additional real estate.

What’s the issue, again?
 
Well enough,
how many millimeters they need to add in the Real World?
Would anybody even notice that?
Sure, but note that the question at hand was whether they'd be able to fit a 16" screen into the current form factor. While a few mm means little when it comes to people noticing, it means everything when it comes to being able to fit something for manufacture.

If they do produce a 16", I don't think they're going to keep the current form factor, for three reasons:

1) It would be very hard for them to put a 16.0" screen into the current form factor, since that would require it to be completely edgeless on the sides.

2) The industry standard for calling something 15" seems to be a 15.4" - 15.6" diagonal. Likewise, if Apple is going to call something 16", they'll probably want to hold to that convention. Thus, most likely their 16" will be 16.4" (not 16.0"), which (at the predicted 3072:1920 resolution), would come out to 221 ppi, thus nicely meeting the retina standard. And they can't fit a 16.4" diagonal into the current form factor.

3) The latest rumors say this is going to be a pro-focused laptop, which means they're going to need a somewhat larger case anyways, for better thermal management (especially if they want to include more powerful GPUs). [And consistent with the rumor that it will be pro-focused, Apple itself has said the same Pro Workflow Team that gave input to the design of the new MacPro has also been working with Apple on the redesign of the MacBook Pro: https://macdailynews.com/2019/06/05...earned-will-trickle-down-to-all-pro-products/ .]
 
I do like those displays ..... I would get a new MBA just for this alone, but i doubt it will hold because I don't like the Touch bar,,

non-touchbar + thin display) on MBA would be good.
 
How sure are we about the rumored 2nd MBA refresh being released just two months after the present one.

I want a new keyboard since the low travel keys with reliability issues can kiss my ass.

Unfortunately, I am doubtful there will be a (2019-Oct) MBA announcement right after the (2019-Jul) MBA refresh.

Still hopeful.
 
I'd like them to return to the physical function keys, but where each key's surface was a programmable OLED display.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ener Ji
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.