It doesn't only affect sleep. Memory is in standby mode during normal computer operation unless a data transfer is performed (active). And you obviously don't read / write to all of your memory at once.
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.
The real reason for no 32gb option
- Thread starter slughead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
May I see a source for this?
If battery life is such a concern, why didn't Apple put in a bigger battery?
Also, looking at the teardown, why are there gaps around the battery?
https://blogs.synopsys.com/committedtomemory/2014/01/10/when-is-lpddr3-not-lpddr3-when-its-ddr3l/
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/~ipek/micro15.pdf
summary – DDR4 indeed consumes less for I/O operation but doesn't power itself down to standby fast enough, hence its background power consumption is almost 50% of the total power consumption (Fig 18a). LPDDR3's background power is 17%
I don't know. Could be weight savings to reach 4 lbs, most likely combined with something else. And in the end it's still 75Wh, which is a lot for a 15" ultraportable.
ah okay.
Well Linus TT pointed out that standard ddr4 laptop RAM uses a tiny amount of power anyway. seems to me the mistake (in addition to soldered chips, glued batteries, soldered SSDs, boring GPU options, huge price tag, no touch screen) is the lower mw hour battery. Add a bit more and allow for expansion. Maybe even through in a decent GPU option -- you know ,for professionals
[doublepost=1479602850][/doublepost]
Reviewers are not getting good battery life out of these machines -- or at least a lot less than advertised
Last edited:
Seriously? Why do folks respond in such a manner when they can't comprehend why others want a 32gb option.
Separately, I've read all the razzmatazz of excuses why there's no 32gb option and it's all a bunch of lazy excuses. Apple held back a 16gb option due to wanting to milk the next generation of MBP that WILL offer 32gb. Apple is the iconic marketing company nowadays.
I think the main reason is the "required" 30-days sleep mode without hibernation and the corresponding battery drain from DDR4. 30 days means 3% / day of drain for LPDDR3. DDR4 alone may increase that drain up to ~5x (according to this) Imagine how much **** Apple would be getting for 15% / day of battery drain in sleep mode?
Anything more powerful than Pro 450/455/460 in this ultraportable form factor will lead to much worse experience (significant overheating, constant GPU throttling) or will require an entirely new heavier chassis with bigger heatsinks, fans and power supply. 100Wh limit won't be adequate to provide the same level of battery life either. There's a reason why comparable laptops use M500 or M1000 at most (with M2000 being reserved for larger machines).
Apple has always been using mid-range dGPUs in 15" MacBook Pros because it's the best tradeoff between power and performance for them. And Pro 450/455/460 are the only cards that support 6x displays (2x 5K are seen as 4x screens + 1x built-in) while nVidia cards can't do that. Driving two 5K screens could be a requirement for all new Macs
I know that the heatsink Apple uses on the 15" is a bit too small, but it's pretty much the same in all similar laptops. The Razer Blade has a bit bigger one and just enough to cool down the GTX 1060, anything else wouldn't even be possible.
Haven't seen proper reviews just yet, so I'm waiting.
Last edited:
Where did that come from (no, really... why??)
Much worse in a thin form-factor, yes. Right now it's a glorified ipad.
Yes, it would take more power and yes, by all means a bit thicker (ermuhgerd no!) but that's what pros want, especially given that Apple has not done jack for eGPU or their Mac Pro. Mac Pro is using a card equivalent in power to one released 5 years ago... Also: throttling on battery and going balls-out while plugged in is a fine way to go. Just look at the Mac Pro which is a throttled Radeon 280X! I throttle my Alienware R2 980m while on air planes, it has the juice to do it just fine.
Also: I would LOVE to see how long that baby battery lasts running anything GPU intensive even with its neutered GPU. 2 hours maybe? yikes.
I mean, what's the point of a Macbook Pro? Great point about 32gb, the rest of the hardware is not nearly the spec of a real editing machine. It's nice to have 4 thunderbolts but with no eGPU it's kind of sad and pointless. 5 monitors? Great! But if I'm at my desk, why don't I just buy a mini-ITX PC and get triple the GPU performance for 1/5 the price? Just look at this ridiculous setup--$2500+ for so little performance for the money it's sad. You'd be so much better off just charging yourself $250 an hour to figure out how to build a hackintosh, buying a much cheaper laptop, and enjoying far more power.
[doublepost=1479619694][/doublepost]
Someone changed my mind about this (not that I'd buy a Macbook with 32gb of soldered memory if it even existed): The macbook pro is so underpowered, anything you might do with 32GB probably wouldn't be done with a macbook pro anyway. Just think of it as a super ipad! It's a "pro" machine in name only.
Last edited:
No it's not. It's one of the lightest 15" ultrabooks with 45W quadcore, arguably the best screen and SSD, decent dGPU, finally adequate cooling system, fastest external interface and a bunch of design compromises to boot.
Not everyone thinks this kind of hardware in a laptop is appropriate. I'd never buy such a machine, because for my needs it's an abomination.
It'd still be better than with a GPU having 2x power consumption, right?
It's the tradeoff between portability, battery life and performance.
Like what? Except for the mid-range dGPU everything else is appropriate. You won't find a significantly faster CPU in any laptop. The rest of the components are top notch.
No, it's not. You don't need insane 3D power to run CAD software, a couple of virtual machines etc.
Failed logic.
First, an ITX computer with proper SSD, CPU and mid-range workstation videocard won't be that cheap. Don't forget a UPC as well.
Second, whats the point of buying a redundant computer if you can use your laptop and get the same (or better) result with more convenience of not having to maintain two computers? It's cheaper to own a rMBP than to own a rMBP and a mini-ITX desktop.
Only on macrumors one can learn that if you don't need GTX 1080 in a laptop, you're not a pro anymore. I'm also so sorry for Intel, I'll let them know that their best mobile quad-core CPUs are underpowered. Such a shame, really.
Seriously, I'm done with Apple. Unless they put four mobile Xeons, 256GB of RAM and two Quadro M5500 videocards in the next MacBook Pro, I'm buying DELL!
P.S. I'm really sorry for normal people in this thread, but I decided that clarification would be interesting for others. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking this seriously, because this kind of pointless discussion with someone who can't even remotely grasp that other people's needs may (MAY!!) be different from their owns... reminds me arguments amongst teenagers in high-school.
Last edited:
Rubbish. The new MBP is demonstrably closer in power to a current desktop than it has ever been in its entire history. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Putting a more powerful GPU in there would require at least double the power envelope. Look at machines that do this and they all have battery life that would be completely unacceptable to the vast majority of buyers - and most of them still throttle heavily under even moderate load! Apple has never built this kind of laptop, ever.
No, we don't want that
The point of a MacBook Pro is to be the fastest ultraportable laptop around and provide optimal balance between portability and performance. This was always the case. Already the first MacBook Pro focused on being thin and light (for contemporary standards). It was around 2.5 kg where most other laptops with comparable specs were 3+ kg. Even more, this was already the design focus before the Intel transition.
If that is the point of your criticism, sorry friend, you are a decade or two too late. Apple is not interested in making desktop replacements or gaming laptops.
The question is: Were people unhappy with the portability of the previous MacBook Pros? I think what many are complaining about is Apple choose portability over battery life and performance. Especially when one considers Apple already offered, and still does, lighter and smaller laptops.
-
[doublepost=1479662700][/doublepost]On What "Pros" use: Pro what? If you're a web developer like I used to be, a Macbook Pro at $2,500 will have no obvious advantage over a $1,200 PC laptop for about 99% of what you do. I joked about it being a glorified iPad, but it's true. If the iPad had the same apps and a cursor, it probably too would have barely any issues for people who don't need a dGPU.
For people who DO need a dGPU, the Macbook Pro is totally underpowered for the money. Oh great, it's got very low power dGPU, it's also got HALF the performance of similarly priced laptops and it'll still smoke that baby battery if you ever want to use it.
$2,500 will yes, buy you a desktop computer with twice the GPU performance, 3 times the storage, twice the RAM, and absurd upgradability options PLUS a perfectly adequate non-dGPU laptop PLUS about $900 worth of cheeseburgers. It is a TON of money.
$2,500 will also buy you a laptop with over twice the power and better battery life at the same tasks (unless part of your use-case is leaving it on standby for over 2 weeks with no power, which is of dire importance I'm sure).
So once again: I point out that I was wrong: it makes no sense for the Macbook Pro to have 32GB of RAM, there are almost no use-cases in which you'd need that but wouldn't also need more than a piddly 1.3 tflop GPU for $2,500.
I'm not saying it's a bad product or "pros" can't use it, but if you need GPU performance or if you value your money, this is a joke. Once again: Who is this product for?
[doublepost=1479662700][/doublepost]On What "Pros" use: Pro what? If you're a web developer like I used to be, a Macbook Pro at $2,500 will have no obvious advantage over a $1,200 PC laptop for about 99% of what you do. I joked about it being a glorified iPad, but it's true. If the iPad had the same apps and a cursor, it probably too would have barely any issues for people who don't need a dGPU.
For people who DO need a dGPU, the Macbook Pro is totally underpowered for the money. Oh great, it's got very low power dGPU, it's also got HALF the performance of similarly priced laptops and it'll still smoke that baby battery if you ever want to use it.
$2,500 will yes, buy you a desktop computer with twice the GPU performance, 3 times the storage, twice the RAM, and absurd upgradability options PLUS a perfectly adequate non-dGPU laptop PLUS about $900 worth of cheeseburgers. It is a TON of money.
$2,500 will also buy you a laptop with over twice the power and better battery life at the same tasks (unless part of your use-case is leaving it on standby for over 2 weeks with no power, which is of dire importance I'm sure).
So once again: I point out that I was wrong: it makes no sense for the Macbook Pro to have 32GB of RAM, there are almost no use-cases in which you'd need that but wouldn't also need more than a piddly 1.3 tflop GPU for $2,500.
I'm not saying it's a bad product or "pros" can't use it, but if you need GPU performance or if you value your money, this is a joke. Once again: Who is this product for?
Last edited:
Nice, now go find a perfectly adequate non-dGPU laptop (not a low-end trash) for 1600$ minus the desktop computer costs (don't forget to include fast 1.5TB SSD cause "3 times the storage")
Care to provide an example? (even if twice the power means twice the videocard 3D performance which is not everyone's need, ffs...)
total bs, sorry. There's an entire class of high-end 15" laptops with either iGPU or mid-range dGPU that focus on screen, portability, built quality, SSD speed, CPU speed and battery life.
Care to provide an example (other than some "gaming" GTX 1060 machines) of any laptop in the same class? Oh wait, you're talking again as if pure 3D performance is what measures performance?
If only you were able to listen....
I may talk about external display support or GPU acceleration in certain applications where many pros are perfectly fine with a power / performance tradeoff.... but what's the point when you don't listen to arguments?[doublepost=1479667613][/doublepost]GPU acceleration in software is also heavily dependant on the amount of VRAM, and that's another point where iGPU lags behind (especially compared to Pro 460 with 4GB for the first time in MacBooks). Let alone the performance boost from iGPU to midrange dGPU which is very welcome
Last edited:
So in other words, you're saying you're not a the target audience for the MBP. The Pro in MacBook Pro means Professional. Or it did until this neutered 16gb max. version was released for the 15". Apple sold out the Pro audience years ago when they went to integrated graphics in the 13". Now Apple has done away with the lower tier machines such as MBA and white MacBooks such that Apple's idea is everybody's a "Pro" user so now we get into silly season with MBA users saying "you don't need 32GB".
The Pro machines aren't about saying "you don't need it". They're about pushing the BOUNDARIES of the technology. The 2016 MBP doesn't push any technology boundary other that the dongle limit. The 2016 MBP is a piece of junk with a worthless function key replacement and a neutered top memory config.
Dear Apple, if you're reading please actually deliver the machine you should be. Stop making excuses by releasing junk products and actually respond to the requirements of the core audience who sustained you through the dark days. Regards, Pro users.
I would argue that it's a low priority. Of all the things to complain about, RAM is at the bottom.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I wanted the 15-inch Retina screen, and I have always gotten the most powerful processor and most RAM and large HDD (or SSD now) in all my equipment. This is to future-proof as much as possible my considerable investment in technology. And with Apple, that investment is far more considerable than it should be.
All this talk about who is or isn't a "Professional" is nonsensical drivel. How many people buy high end systems just to play games? Are THEY "Professional" buyers?
So, what do YOU use your "Professional" system for? That is the question I originally asked. From Apple's business perspective, I don't see what the need for that much RAM is in a laptop. There just aren't enough users who would actually buy that much RAM to justify offering it. So, enlighten me.
lol, OP strikes again that feeling when stubbornness is proportional to lack of knowledge...
What if I told you that a mobile GTX 1060 has TDP of ~60-75W and is rated at 3.5 TFlops
Pro 460 has TDP of 35W and is rated at 1.85 TFlops.
So in fact they are more or less equally power efficient. Pro 460 also gives 15% performance boost over 960M while reducing TDP from 60W to 35W.
That's a much more efficient choice for any light 15", and it's even better due to 2x 5K display support which none of the nVidia cards have.
Try better next time and enjoy "gaming" laptops that still never touch desktop performance at twice the cost and lose all advantages of portability, battery life and efficiency (the reason why many even consider laptop in the first place)
that feeling when stubbornness is proportional to lack of knowledge...What if I told you that a mobile GTX 1060 has TDP of ~60-75W and is rated at 3.5 TFlops
Pro 460 has TDP of 35W and is rated at 1.85 TFlops.
So in fact they are more or less equally power efficient. Pro 460 also gives 15% performance boost over 960M while reducing TDP from 60W to 35W.
That's a much more efficient choice for any light 15", and it's even better due to 2x 5K display support which none of the nVidia cards have.
Try better next time
and enjoy "gaming" laptops that still never touch desktop performance at twice the cost and lose all advantages of portability, battery life and efficiency (the reason why many even consider laptop in the first place)
Last edited:
Look the man is probably right, given that there are only 8 chips on the board available as solder points the memory that is available is probably power hungry at the density required to fit it on the logic board. No conspiracy here folks
Putting words in your mouth? You're the one who said you're a "normal user". I pointed out the Pro means "Professional" which implies unhindered by silly 16gb limitations and excuses from an Apple Marketing exec. What I use a MBP for is irrelevant to you. The key fact is that a Professional machine does not have technology LIMITATIONS like 16gb of RAM. When you ask "What do you need that for?" then you're asking the wrong question.
No, it was a serious question. I don't know what workloads would require that much RAM in a laptop. Evidently, Apple doesn't think there are enough potential buyers for 32 GB to warrant offering it.
You think that there aren't other "Professionals" who are fine with 8 or 16 GB RAM, but who still want a MBP for other reasons?