Show me the "better" kabylake processor they could have gone with.
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 Verge: The MacBook Pro is a lie
- Thread starter tubeexperience
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I ask you second time. Show me the place I said I'm talking about Kaby Lakes please? I already stated there are Skylakes that are faster. Why don't you ask me about Cannon Lakes? I haven't talked about them either and they're not available as well.
Your claim was that they're not using the fastest ones because they cost more. My claim is they're not using the fastest ones because Intel can't make them in sufficient volume.
As long as you and I both agree we're both assuming and don't actually know why they didn't use them, then we're all good. Because the truth is only Apple or Intel knows why. Don't ask me to backup my assumption and then act like your assumption is somehow any more truthful or doesn't need to be proven. The fact that they're more expensive (true) is irrelevant to Apple's decision making if Apple can't even acquire enough from Intel to satisfy the demand for their product. That effectively rules them out as an option.
I also appreciate you replying to me and then quoting leman like that was something I said, by the way. I said they're using the fastest chips available to Apple.
Oh now you know my claim better than I do.
You and I both agree we're both assuming and don't actually know why they didn't use them, we're good. But my claim they're not using the fastest consumer CPUs still stands and is factually correct. I do not claim why, I assume why. But I do not assume, I claim they don't use it.
Is there a better way I can show you the difference between the fact someone is not doing something and the reason for not doing this?
Terrible article, whoever wrote it does not even took the time to educate himself on why Skylake was the only possible option.
(I think you mistook me for xmonkey, the claim with fastest CPUs was mine).
At this point, I might try to wiggle my way out of this by saying, well, the 6X70HQ CPUs actually have slightly lower turbo-boost clocks and are also less likely to maintain their clocks under load due to beefy GPU, to which you could respond with the point of the L4 cache, but lets not do all that.
Sure, my claim was a bit careless. Anyway, because the 6X70HQ series are virtually absent from the market, save for some very very rare confugurations, I have basically dismissed them as vapourware. Let me rephrase my statement in a following way: Apple is using the fastest mobile consumer CPUs that is currently shipping in substantial quantities across configurations in comparable laptop categories (as in: fastest current actually shipping in bulk CPUs).
Hey! Thanks for such a reply.
No, @xmonkey has his own claim.
I haven't mistook you for him but your post is the reason for his claim to appear.As for technical rectification, thank you! Mostly agree.
If we rephrase your statement as something like "is currently and was shipping for almost a year in substantial quantities" (stress on the almost outdated nature of the CPUs which will be replaced by Kaby Lake counterparts in 2-4 months) then we're good.
Ok, so is the following not what you were saying? Because it sounded like you had 2 parts. 1. Apple isn't using the fastest Skylake Intel makes and 2. They're not using them because they cost too much. That's how I read it.
#1 I agree with you, sure technically they aren't using the fastest Skylake Intel makes. But #2 I don't agree with as it's not established that Intel can/cannot produce enough of them. I took issue with the idea that Apple didn't use them purely as a way to cheap out and save money.
So you're talking about bumping up the TDP envelope of the Macbook Pro's then? Is that what you're getting at?
So the argument is being made that Skylake chips with L4 cache are objectively better than Skylake with HD iGPUs? I was under the impression (from the Waiting for Skylake thread) that L4 was ONLY for use with graphics and the Iris Pro iGPU.
So wouldn't the fact that Apple went with dGPUs negate the benefits of Iris Pro iGPU models? If base processing power is your limiting factor, wouldn't the 6920 with Polaris 460 dGPU chip beat the 6970 with Iris Pro 580 iGPU?
Point me to a link that says otherwise.
So wouldn't the fact that Apple went with dGPUs negate the benefits of Iris Pro iGPU models? If base processing power is your limiting factor, wouldn't the 6920 with Polaris 460 dGPU chip beat the 6970 with Iris Pro 580 iGPU?
Point me to a link that says otherwise.
Opposite is not established either. There are different laptops readily available with Skylake Iris Pros CPUs. Their niche is small as it was for Haswell and Broadwell, not something new for Skylake. As for the Apple we don't have information whether availability was the concern.
So I can agree that our assumptions are equally likely true. I cannot agree that yours is more likely than mine though.
This "review" sounds just like idiocy.
Well mixed with some interesting opinion, but still idiocy.
And it's not a review in the proper sense of the term.
Exactly as the MacBook Pro never was specifically for Professional, and never will be.
My god...
Well mixed with some interesting opinion, but still idiocy.
And it's not a review in the proper sense of the term.
Exactly as the MacBook Pro never was specifically for Professional, and never will be.
My god...
Read the thread please. Keyword: Iris Pro. No, it's not only the best Intel iGPU.
[doublepost=1478550114][/doublepost]
You will switch to discrete more often and spend more energy on that. Without considering cost Iris Pro + 460 is still much better than HD + 460. Unfortunately we can't consider the cost because it's NDA between Apple and Intel.
I can appreciate the message from the article. I agree that 16GB is no longer enough, the final 17" MacBook Pros could have 32GB. Faster RAM would be nice too.
The processor isn't really something Apple has control over, without much pressure from AMD Intel isn't releasing stellar processors at the rate they used to. My late 2013 Macbook Pro with the 4960 processor benchmarks as fast as the new mobile processors, just not as efficient.
The dongle issue is annoying but tolerable. Fussing over the keyboard seems like nitpicking.
Removing the magsafe is inexcusable. Soldering in new ports because of tripped and stripped wires is frustrating at best, infuriating at worst.
This trend is expected, the other Pro model is dying quietly without updates for years. I don't like it but since I'm not a majority shareholder I don't have much say. Vote with my wallet on ebay for the older models that I see as superior.
The processor isn't really something Apple has control over, without much pressure from AMD Intel isn't releasing stellar processors at the rate they used to. My late 2013 Macbook Pro with the 4960 processor benchmarks as fast as the new mobile processors, just not as efficient.
The dongle issue is annoying but tolerable. Fussing over the keyboard seems like nitpicking.
Removing the magsafe is inexcusable. Soldering in new ports because of tripped and stripped wires is frustrating at best, infuriating at worst.
This trend is expected, the other Pro model is dying quietly without updates for years. I don't like it but since I'm not a majority shareholder I don't have much say. Vote with my wallet on ebay for the older models that I see as superior.
Please show us some available laptops with the 6770HQ? I'm not aware of any currently, only the NUC, but would be interested to see some.
For what it's worth, I was completely on the bandwagon of "Apple is waiting for the Iris Pro quad-cores" as the reason for the delay. It made complete sense given the past 15" and I'll freely admit I was wrong on that. I don't think that's the reason anymore and I think it's Polaris that Apple was really waiting for.
Now you see, I was talking about Iris Pro CPUs not about i7 Iris Pro CPUs.
HP Zbook Studio E3-1545M.
Lenovo P50 E3-1575M.
Lenovo P70 E3-1545M and E3-1575M.
Dell Precision E3-1515M, E3-1545M and E3-1575M.
As for the second part of your post, same for me.
[doublepost=1478550809][/doublepost]Still, lack of i7 Iris Pro laptops does not prove there was/is availability problem as there were very few i7 Iris Pro models in previous generations as well and there were no similar availability problems in place for Apple and there were no Xeon mobile counterparts then.
Wait, were you talking about Xeons this whole time? We're on different pages then. I don't believe Apple has once used a Xeon in their MBPs.Now you see, I was talking about Iris Pro CPUs not about i7 Iris Pro CPUs.
HP Zbook Studio E3-1545M.
Lenovo P50 E3-1575M.
Lenovo P70 E3-1545M and E3-1575M.
Dell Precision E3-1515M, E3-1545M and E3-1575M.
As for the second part of your post, same for me.
Then why aren't you using a 12" Macbook or a Surface Pro? Cause by your definition weight is all that matters.
So, if they called it the Macbook Freak Out '76, it would be OK? Can't amateurs use the Macbook Pro too?
There is no such thing as a "Pro" laptop, just laptops with varying specs. Who cares what the happen to call it. If it meets your needs then buy it. If not, then don't. Who buys stuff based on whether the name "Pro" is in it or not.
There is no such thing as a "Pro" laptop, just laptops with varying specs. Who cares what the happen to call it. If it meets your needs then buy it. If not, then don't. Who buys stuff based on whether the name "Pro" is in it or not.
Last edited:
Clickbait article full of misinformation. Typical Verge. They are still recovering from the crime against humanity that is the removal of the headphone jack on the iPhone 7.
Most of the things in the article are misinformed or highly subjective.
Most of the things in the article are misinformed or highly subjective.
I don't believe anyone has once used a Xeon in their high-end laptops either. This is the first generation of Intel mobile Xeons.
[doublepost=1478553532][/doublepost]
Ok, we're so sorry we chose words with 1% different sense we meant. Apple, you're not guilty in misproviding "Pro" as "Professional" machine. Gosh, everything is better now that we sorted this out.
Apple, you're just guilty in misproviding a machine with specific specs you had for like ten years to those audience who bought it regularly in the said 10 years and practically made all your content for your precious iPhone. That is so much different.
i guess after this article, verge will never again be invited to apple events and hence we will not see Nilay wearing his gang banger bracelet demoing new apple non-pro products. <----- COURAGE (take note Phil)
Balance, my friend. Balance.Then why aren't you using a 12" Macbook or a Surface Pro? Cause by your definition weight is all that matters.
LOL, your post has so many facts.
I've been throwing facts left and right, no one cares.
But ok, if you insist:
"The updated MacBooks from Apple have newer chips, but not that much newer, with Apple using yesteryear’s Intel Skylake CPUs and not this year’s Kaby Lake."
The author should know Kaby Lake in MacBook Pro class still don't exist. Same for, say, Surface Book, which was also just updated - with a Skylake i7.
less compatible than ever before
A matter of opinion. Not true, they have the largest number of universal ports.
For consumer or casual use, that’s perfectly adequate, but "for a developer work machine, 16GB is the uncomfortable minimum requirement,"
A matter of opinion. While there are workflows that require more, saying that 16Gb is "adequate for casual use" is plain wrong.
Etc. etc.