Okay, I'm going to try to bring some clarity to this endless repetition. I'm going to write a post that should contain the most up-to-date rumor-state and processor, GPU, etc. knowings, which will be updated and is intended for mass quoting whenever a so-often-hear question reappears. As this is kind of a collective effort, it would be great if people send me DMs of points I miss or didn't get right, or are simply not included yet, your info will be worked in and you will be quoted. Let's start with the basic processor things, and some GPU talk. Btw, this text is quoted so it won't be included in future quotations.
PROCESSORS
Apple has in the past used 28-watt-class U-series Intel Core Dual-Core-CPUs for the 13'' MBP, and 47-watt-class H(Q) Intel Core Quad-Core CPUs for the 15''. Both of those have
always been used with the best iGPU available, which since Haswell has been dubbed "Iris (Pro)" by Intel.
Judging from the past, Apple will use the following CPUs for the 13'' model:
Intel Core i5-6267U,
Intel Core i5-6287U,
Intel Core i7-6567U. Those processors have been released since Q1 2016, but they only been showing up in a very low volume VAIO-laptop so far.
For the 15'':
Intel Core i7-6770HQ,
Intel Core i7-6870HQ,
Intel Core i7-6970HQ. While these have officially been launched in Q1 2016, only the 6770 has been seen in the wild, and that only in Intel's own mini-computer (NUC), and that only since 06/2016.
About
Kaby Lake: Intel's newest leaked
roadmap indicates that chips suitable for the 13'' MBP (2+3e, U-processors top line) are due in mid-Q1 2017, chips appropriate for the 15'' MBP (4+4e, H-processors top line) are not planned at all at the moment, replacement will be Coffee Lake in mid-Q2 2018. This means, that unless Apple waits till about February 2017 for a release, we will not see Kaby Lake in any MBP. If they wait that long, we could get 13'' Kaby Lake MBPs, but 15'' are no possibility.
This all of course only applies if Apple sticks to their current CPU usage. No rumor so far indicates that Apple is changing that.
iMac 27" uses S-GT2 (first graphic, S, second line, Kabylake available Q4/16)
iMac 21" uses S-GT4 (first graphic, S, first line, Skylake available Q4/16)
MBP 15" uses H-GT4 (second graphic, H, first line, Skylake supposed to be available since Q2/16, Kabylake not planned at all, Coffee Lake planed Q2/18)
MBP 13" uses U-GT3 (second graphic, U 28w, first line, Kabylake available Q1/17)
MBA both use U-GT3 (second graphic, U 15w, first line, Kabylake available Q1/17)
MB uses Y-GT2 (second graphic, Y, Kabylake available since Q3/16)
MM uses same as 13'' MBP, used to offer same as 15'' MBP till 2012
MP uses Xeon E5 single processor, the 16xx-line. Currently uses Ivy Bridge, Haswell available since Q3/14, Broadwell available since Q2/16. Skylake is due ~Q3/17.
GPUs
Historically, Apple has been using
iGPUs in most of it's laptops (except the mid- and top-tier 15'' MBPs). iGPUs make sense for a couple of reasons, as they draw a lot less power (e.g. 45 watts for CPU+iGPU vs. 45 watts for CPU + say 75 watts for a GeForce 1060), they offer sufficient performance for most users, they are less likely to cause issues, and less costly for Apple. With Skylake, Intel has boosted the iGPUs heavily. This makes it plausible that Apple is sticking to it's behavior and will use top-class iGPUs for all of it's products, as they are available (28-watt U-class gets Iris 550, 45-watt HQ-class gets Iris 580, MacBook Air suited 15-watt U-class gets Iris 540). If Apple were abandoning the top-class iGPUs, they could have released newer MacBooks for almost a year, so it seems unlikely they make the change now.
For
dGPUs, Apple has been using AMD offerings in the last years, because of their better compliance with OpenCL, which Apple heavily uses in it's pro Apps. Nvidia promotes it's own CUDA-architecture, which would not be profitable to overall performance. Another point to consider is the fact that Apple grants very little power to the 15'' MBP dGPUs, to make a thin, light and long-battery-time design possible. The MagSafe charger gives you the idea: It offers 85 watts, which, when you subtract the 45 watts for the CPU, leaves a theoretical absolute maximum of 40 watts for the dGPU. In that class, Nvidia has no offerings at the moment that are faster that the Iris 580, as even the smallest Pascal-chip (the 1060) requires ~75 watts. AMD's Polaris GPUs however are more fitting, as the Radeon 480m requires 35 watts, while performing at theoretically double the speed of the Iris 580. Thus, it seems likely that – if Apple can make room for a dGPU in a possible redesign – the Radeon 480m will be used.
SSDs
Speculation has been going on about Apple raising the base models from 128/256GB to 256/512GB. Since the rMB is shipping with 256GB as a minimum, this does not seem to be too far stretched. Prices for SSDs have also been coming down a lot. Keep in mind that Apple uses PCIe SSDs, which are a lot faster and more expensive than consumer SATA SSDs.
A
2TB option could be available, but is just now technically possible.
Samsung introduced the 960 Pro in a 2TB tier a few weeks back, Apple's custom SSDs are often based on Samsung technology. Keep in mind that MBPs use a M2-style form factor, and won't fit a 2,5'' 4TB 850 Evo. (thanks @
CaliKW)
RAM
Skylake introduces support for
DDR4 RAM, and since even normal DDR4 uses lower voltage (and thus power) than DDR3L, it seems plausible for Apple to switch to DDR4.
Also, DDR4 offers support for 16GB per channel, while DDR3L supports 8GB per channel. The MBP uses a two-channel RAM setup, doubling the technical maximum from 16GB to
32GB. As the MBP has not seen it's maximum RAM increase in a while, and the technical possibility being there, I don't see a reason why Apple should not include a 32GB option.
…to be continued. Please help me in making this a comprehensive FAQ-style post.
Unfortunately anything of value posted here has been lost in all the whining and trying to get it to some pointless number of pages.
