The future of Macbook Pro: According to my needs

[-BigMac-]

Hi Guys.

Some might say my argument is unconventional, even counter intuitive, but this is my ideal Macbook Pro. I for one, do not care how many grams my laptop is lighter by every year. I can carry around 3kg. After all, half of us go to the gym to lift much much more than that, and we pay to be able to lift that weight.

I dont care how thick my MBP is, it doesnt get carried in my pocket, and my backpack has more than enough space for 3-4 MBPs.

What i do care about: Battery life. CPU Power. GPU Power. Expandability.
By Comprimising on weight and thickness (to pre retina MBPs, which lets face it, everyone was fine with before retina showed us thinner), we gain huge amounts of internal space for the things which matter.

Here is my wish list for the ideal MBP:

- Thickness of 'pre Retina' Macbook pro
- Weight of 'pre Retina' Macbook Pro
- Several quad core processors inside
- Dual gpus as stock
- Space for Drive expandability

To counteract my argument, i would ask the readers to roughly estimate how many minutes/hours per day you carry your MBP around. And whether you would have noticeable discomfort with an additional 1kg added to that weight.

Thanks for your time

 

[Freyqq]

Hi Guys.

Some might say my argument is unconventional, even counter intuitive, but this is my ideal Macbook Pro. I for one, do not care how many grams my laptop is lighter by every year. I can carry around 3kg. After all, half of us go to the gym to lift much much more than that, and we pay to be able to lift that weight.

I dont care how thick my MBP is, it doesnt get carried in my pocket, and my backpack has more than enough space for 3-4 MBPs.

What i do care about: Battery life. CPU Power. GPU Power. Expandability.
By Comprimising on weight and thickness (to pre retina MBPs, which lets face it, everyone was fine with before retina showed us thinner), we gain huge amounts of internal space for the things which matter.

Here is my wish list for the ideal MBP:

- Thickness of 'pre Retina' Macbook pro
- Weight of 'pre Retina' Macbook Pro
- Several quad core processors inside
- Dual gpus as stock
- Space for Drive expandability

To counteract my argument, i would ask the readers to roughly estimate how many minutes/hours per day you carry your MBP around. And whether you would have noticeable discomfort with an additional 1kg added to that weight.

Thanks for your time

Several quad core processors? I don't think there is a chipset on the market for dual CPU laptop processors, and I don't see why you'd want one.

Current retina models actually have better cooling than the cmbps.

Dual gpu is always less efficient than having one beefy gpu.

Apple has been using pcie ssds that are the size of a stick of ram. So, you don't really need much room.

I get your point, but you haven't really done any research to make your case plausible. Go look at the thick PC laptops and compare.

 

[Cuniac]

Several CPUs is not going to happen. But several GPUs would be awesome. Having said that, it a pipe dream. But. If they did make a MacBook Elite, my wish list is.

Over clocked i7 to 4.4
Two 980m
PCIe ssd + Sata HD bay
Retina
32gb 2100 ram
2 thunderbolt
4 USB 3.1
17 inch screen

Now this would weigh 12 pounds so I would have to start working out. It would be 2 inches think so I need a bigger bag. Battery would last 1 hour so I'll need to be close to an outlit. And it will run hot so I'll have to wear think pants.

I would probably still want it lol but I'd rather have the 15 with a single 960 or 970

 

[dmccloud]

Hi Guys.

Some might say my argument is unconventional, even counter intuitive, but this is my ideal Macbook Pro. I for one, do not care how many grams my laptop is lighter by every year. I can carry around 3kg. After all, half of us go to the gym to lift much much more than that, and we pay to be able to lift that weight.

I dont care how thick my MBP is, it doesnt get carried in my pocket, and my backpack has more than enough space for 3-4 MBPs.

What i do care about: Battery life. CPU Power. GPU Power. Expandability.
By Comprimising on weight and thickness (to pre retina MBPs, which lets face it, everyone was fine with before retina showed us thinner), we gain huge amounts of internal space for the things which matter.

Here is my wish list for the ideal MBP:

- Thickness of 'pre Retina' Macbook pro
- Weight of 'pre Retina' Macbook Pro
- Several quad core processors inside
- Dual gpus as stock
- Space for Drive expandability

To counteract my argument, i would ask the readers to roughly estimate how many minutes/hours per day you carry your MBP around. And whether you would have noticeable discomfort with an additional 1kg added to that weight.

Thanks for your time

In order to build a system like you're describing, there's no way it could be the same size and weight as the 15" cMBP with current limitations on cooling, battery capacity, etc. You'd be looking at a machine noticeably thicker, with a lot of space taken up by the cooling necessary to cool that many CPUs. There's really no use case for a laptop (consumer or business markets) with several quad core procs or dual GPUs, much less both in the same machine. And nobody would buy that monster of a machine if the battery life sucked, so you'd have to design the system with enough of a battery to run all of those processors for 6+ hours.

 

[leman]

To counteract my argument, i would ask the readers to roughly estimate how many minutes/hours per day you carry your MBP around. And whether you would have noticeable discomfort with an additional 1kg added to that weight.

You don't make any arguments, so there is nothing to counteract. As to the rest of your post: yes, 1 kg extra is a hug deal. And no, your wish computer will never become reality. Why? Well, first of all, it doesn't make much sense. Second, its impossible to build with the specs you request (see dmccloud's post above).

 

[yjchua95]

I don't think the OP knows the first thing about engineering and thermal design, plus physics.

 

[lowendlinux]

OP you need a desktop.

I will always trade ports for thinness which is why I don't buy Apple portables but even I don't want what you're describing. If I need that much power I just sit down at my desk and let the computer work while being silent and cool.

 

[inhalexhale1]

Hi Guys.

- Thickness of 'pre Retina' Macbook pro
- Weight of 'pre Retina' Macbook Pro
- Several quad core processors inside
- Dual gpus as stock
- Space for Drive expandability

You know several means more than two, right? You need 3+ processors in a laptop? (or at all)

 

[highlights]

Sorry, but size and weight make a huge difference to me. I just ordered a 15" rMBP to replace a 2009 13" Macbook Pro. It's virtually the exact same weight (4.5lbs), and thinner but wider/longer.

I carry my laptop around for a portion of most days -- a minimum of 20-30 minutes of actually carrying it from one location to another. I use a medium sized purse to carry it around. If the 15" rMBP weighted any more I wouldn't have even considered it. My ideal machine would be powered similar to the new rMBP, have a 15" screen that goes end to end on the cover (the absolute limiting factor for the dimensions) and weigh 1-2lbs less. Thickness doesn't much matter. A bigger standard SSD would be awesome, and I would happily upgrade to a 2 or 4TB SSD (or bigger) if available, at the expense of an extra core or larger video card (if size matters for those things). I want/need the extra power of a macbook pro for photoshop and some video editing and rendering -- moderate power, and I like to work on many files at once, but nothing too over the top.

Oh, and it's essential that this machine keeps the SD card reader slot. I want all of my photos and videos to be easily uploaded and stored in one place. None of this external hard drive, external card reader, everything offloaded to the cloud nonsense (at least until solid internet access is available most everywhere). So, yeah, I don't want thinner and lighter at the expense of good features, but I do care about weight, and the features I want improved aren't necessarily related to power.

 

[crsh1976]

I don't care about a dual-CPU setup in notebook form personally, no consumer software out there is optimized for anything like that - plus that would greatly reduce battery autonomy.

Let's start by having a set of decent GPU and screen options; integrated, midrange and top-end GPUs (alternatively: a workstation/pro GPU option); standard, retina and 4k screen options (i'm not sold on the usefulness of a 4k screen for notebooks, but why not).

 

[clovehitch]

Do you run lead weights in your backpack too?

Strength, or implied weakness, has nothing to do with the desire for lightweight equipment. I've paddled K1 and Surfski kayaks competitively for over 20 yr. Although I've given up up weight training, I've continued to train just below competitive levels for another 15 yr.

A lighter and more compact notebook is more efficient, and I look forward to and will pay for that efficiency.

 

[sartrekid]

You have described what the rMBP should be like according to your needs. How can that possibly be argued with?

If I were to list my dream rMBP according to my needs then I'd say that the rMBP is close to perfect. I do carry it around quite a bit, so I wouldn't want for it to be any heavier. It doesn't have to be ultra light, but if - and based on Apple's architects' premise to make things lighter all the time - the rMBP were to become a few grams less, then I'd be all for it. I carry so much stuff around, so less weight is definitely better in my book.

 

[dusk007]

You should really complain about Intel. They are why noone gets more than 4 cores in mobile. They churn out their tiny chips or grow the iGPU rather than add a few cpu cores. More cores would make sense given how bad the power draw gets around 3ghz. 8 cores at 2ghz would work be faster than 4 at 3ghz.

But a dual cpu setup is just not happening.
I also think before one goes dual GPU one should try just going for a bigger gpu first. Two never work as well as one that is twice as big and they are less efficient too.
And if you want two 980M you really need a FAT notebook.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

You should really complain about Intel. They are why noone gets more than 4 cores in mobile. They churn out their tiny chips or grow the iGPU rather than add a few cpu cores. More cores would make sense given how bad the power draw gets around 3ghz. 8 cores at 2ghz would work be faster than 4 at 3ghz.

But a dual cpu setup is just not happening.
I also think before one goes dual GPU one should try just going for a bigger gpu first. Two never work as well as one that is twice as big and they are less efficient too.
And if you want two 980M you really need a FAT notebook.

More cores = a lot more heat and then it just doesn't work in a laptop.....

As for the OP, he can buy his dream laptop tomorrow....

http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/msi-gt80-titan-sli-gaming-laptop

 

[rekhyt]

Here is my wish list for the ideal MBP:

- Thickness of 'pre Retina' Macbook pro
- Weight of 'pre Retina' Macbook Pro
- Several quad core processors inside
- Dual gpus as stock
- Space for Drive expandability

Might as well add in a microwave oven feature, X-ray scanning, 1,000 kg resistance, 1,000 m depth water resistance, diamond coated screen, 16 USB 4.2 ports, 6 Thunderbolt 5 ports.

The biggest issue at the moment with the rMBP is the dGPU issue. Once they get that sorted (nVidia Maxwell. Ideally, 970M or 980M, but most likely 960M), the laptop will be perfect.

A little lighter would be nice as well. The existing thinness is fine.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Might as well add in a microwave oven feature, X-ray scanning, 1,000 kg resistance, 1,000 m depth water resistance, diamond coated screen, 16 USB 4.2 ports, 6 Thunderbolt 5 ports.

The biggest issue at the moment with the rMBP is the dGPU issue. Once they get that sorted (nVidia Maxwell. Ideally, 970M or 980M, but most likely 960M), the laptop will be perfect.

A little lighter would be nice as well. The existing thinness is fine.

It was updated last week to an AMD M370X.

 

[rekhyt]

It was updated last week to an AMD M370X.

The graphics card doesn't match the Maxwell cards. Not even close.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

The graphics card doesn't match the Maxwell cards. Not even close.

Well I haven't seen any benchmarks but that is what you've got until next year so enjoy....

 

[dusk007]

More cores = a lot more heat and then it just doesn't work in a laptop.....

As for the OP, he can buy his dream laptop tomorrow....

http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/msi-gt80-titan-sli-gaming-laptop

Sure it does. Each core uses very different levels of power at each clock rate. At 2Ghz it is maybe 4W at 3Ghz it is 8W and so on.
If you run 8 cores at 4W you got 32W if you run 4 at 3Ghz you got 32W. I didn't test those values but you get the gist. 8 cores can easily work in the 45W package already if 2 cores work in a 4.5W package. In reality clock rates are even more disproporionately inefficient the higher they go.
Quad core already reach the 3.5Ghz ceiling. At this point Intel should really just add a few cores to get more efficient processing power. They don't because they have no competition but there is room for improvement.

That isn't a Broadwell but an Atom but you get the idea just the same.

Or here.

At 3.5Ghz - 1 Ghz you are at half the power consumption.
At half the clock rate you are at less than a quater the consumption.
It always pays to have more cores that can be run at a lower clock, power efficiency wise.

 

[mcmul]

Try harder.

 

[johngwheeler]

Interesting graphs, but don't forget single-threaded apps

Sure it does. Each core uses very different levels of power at each clock rate. At 2Ghz it is maybe 4W at 3Ghz it is 8W and so on.
If you run 8 cores at 4W you got 32W if you run 4 at 3Ghz you got 32W. I didn't test those values but you get the gist. 8 cores can easily work in the 45W package already if 2 cores work in a 4.5W package. In reality clock rates are even more disproporionately inefficient the higher they go.
Quad core already reach the 3.5Ghz ceiling. At this point Intel should really just add a few cores to get more efficient processing power. They don't because they have no competition but there is room for improvement.

That isn't a Broadwell but an Atom but you get the idea just the same.
Image
Or here.
Image
At 3.5Ghz - 1 Ghz you are at half the power consumption.
At half the clock rate you are at less than a quater the consumption.
It always pays to have more cores that can be run at a lower clock, power efficiency wise.

You're correct that at some point merely shrinking CPU dies and increasing clock-speed is going to reach a practical limit, and adding more cores is a possible solution.

However, a lot of applications are still largely single-threaded in design, or at least have a significant proportion of their execution path that only runs on a single thread. It's not always possible to split linear processing into multiple execution threads, and I think we'll see single or dual threaded apps for a long time to come.

Single core frequency is still a big deal, which is why Intel uses turbo boost to get more out of their multi-core CPUs when running such apps.

Massively multi-core CPUs are great in server farms where there is a lot of concurrent load that is typically short-lived, such as web server requests. Most application servers (web servers, Java app servers, etc) are very good at running hundreds or thousands of threads, and will use all available CPU cores. There is a small but growing segment of the server market looking at massive arrays of lower-power ARM chips (e.g. 256 cores per rack-unit). We've seen octo-core CPUs in mobile phones, so maybe this is a valid direction - just not for powerful desktop or laptop computers serving a single user - yet.

 

[dusk007]

But you could use Turbo boost on an 6 or 8 core just the same. Performance that does not benefit from multiple cores does not benefit from a quad core already. But all truly demanding stuff has already been adjusted to take advantage of as many cores as it gets. Lots of new games even eat 6 and more cores if they are around. Media creation software also uses as many cores as it gets.
The stuff that mainly needs single threaded performance will stay where it is at. A bigger CPU still can boost 1 or 2 cores if that is all that is needed. But that is already the same with quad cores today.