Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Waiting for Skylake MBP thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve121178 said:
You said the 14" will have the Intel i5-6267U, i5-6287U, i7-6567U CPU's which can only support a maximum of 4096x2304.

Therefore what you posted can be taken with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

While we're talking about it, why does anyone think the resolution will increase? People who push for higher-than-Retina resolution fall into a few categories:

1) People who believe the human eye can resolve higher resolutions than Retina at the stated distances,
2) people who believe the stated distances are wrong, and
3) people who believe resolution should increase with every iteration of technology regardless of actual usefulness.

I'm not any of those people. And I think, from everything I've seen so far, Apple agrees with me. Increasing the PPI beyond a certain point is useless, and with higher and higher resolutions come sacrifices in terms of computing power and battery life.

I expect the new Skylake MBPs will increase resolution only if the screen size itself increases, but the pixel density will remain relatively the same as current MBPs. Just because the iGPUs on the new Skylake chips can support those resolutions doesn't mean there isn't a cost associated with doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ovedius, CKtoph, suvorovfcb and 4 others
Exile714 said:
While we're talking about it, why does anyone think the resolution will increase? People who push for higher-than-Retina resolution fall into a few categories:

1) People who believe the human eye can resolve higher resolutions than Retina at the stated distances,
2) people who believe the stated distances are wrong, and
3) people who believe resolution should increase with every iteration of technology regardless of actual usefulness.

I'm not any of those people. And I think, from everything I've seen so far, Apple agrees with me. Increasing the PPI beyond a certain point is useless, and with higher and higher resolutions come sacrifices in terms of computing power and battery life.

I expect the new Skylake MBPs will increase resolution only if the screen size itself increases, but the pixel density will remain relatively the same as current MBPs. Just because the iGPUs on the new Skylake chips can support those resolutions doesn't mean there isn't a cost associated with doing so.
Click to expand...

Very very true!
 
Exile714 said:
While we're talking about it, why does anyone think the resolution will increase? People who push for higher-than-Retina resolution fall into a few categories:

1) People who believe the human eye can resolve higher resolutions than Retina at the stated distances,
2) people who believe the stated distances are wrong, and
3) people who believe resolution should increase with every iteration of technology regardless of actual usefulness.

I'm not any of those people. And I think, from everything I've seen so far, Apple agrees with me. Increasing the PPI beyond a certain point is useless, and with higher and higher resolutions come sacrifices in terms of computing power and battery life.

I expect the new Skylake MBPs will increase resolution only if the screen size itself increases, but the pixel density will remain relatively the same as current MBPs. Just because the iGPUs on the new Skylake chips can support those resolutions doesn't mean there isn't a cost associated with doing so.
Click to expand...



Oh I don't fall in ANY of these categories.

I currently own a 17" MBP with 1920x1200px resolution. I kept it until now because the 16:10 equilavent of FullHD is the perfect amount of usable workspace for a notebook. Give me something with a workspace of 1280x800 or 1440x900 etc. and I just feel uncomfortably constrained.

The current 15" rMBP can scale to a 1920x1200px equiv. workspace, but it cannot natively render the @2x assets at 1:1 pixels. And here it is quite obvious that it is not a native resolution. It's still better than most displays of yesteryear, but compared to the rMBPs native @2x rendering it doesn't look too good.

With that being the case I simply want 1920x1200 @2x aka 3840x2400. Not because others have it. Not because I want a (mega)pixel race. I simply want a 1920x1200 workspace with 1:1 pixel rendering @2x.

Everything that's going beyond that dramatically would not yield any real advantage, save for a good looking spec-sheet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arline, mrblack927, senthor and 3 others
TheralSadurns said:
Oh I don't fall in ANY of these categories.

I currently own a 17" MBP with 1920x1200px resolution. I kept it until now because the 16:10 equilavent of FullHD is the perfect amount of usable workspace for a notebook. Give me something with a workspace of 1280x800 or 1440x900 etc. and I just feel uncomfortably constrained.

The current 15" rMBP can scale to a 1920x1200px equiv. workspace, but it cannot natively render the @2x assets at 1:1 pixels. And here it is quite obvious that it is not a native resolution. It's still better than most displays of yesteryear, but compared to the rMBPs native @2x rendering it doesn't look too good.

With that being the case I simply want 1920x1200 @2x aka 3840x2400. Not because others have it. Not because I want a (mega)pixel race. I simply want a 1920x1200 workspace with 1:1 pixel rendering @2x.

Everything that's going beyond that dramatically would not yield any real advantage, save for a good looking spec-sheet.
Click to expand...

Very unlikely. It would be like 141 ppi, hardly readable, very little text an gui etc.
I think they won't go over the rMB's 125 ppi, and that means 1680x1050 (123ppi) @x2 native for 16", and 1440x900 (121ppi) for the 14".
 
Exile714 said:
While we're talking about it, why does anyone think the resolution will increase? People who push for higher-than-Retina resolution fall into a few categories:

1) People who believe the human eye can resolve higher resolutions than Retina at the stated distances,
2) people who believe the stated distances are wrong, and
3) people who believe resolution should increase with every iteration of technology regardless of actual usefulness.

I'm not any of those people. And I think, from everything I've seen so far, Apple agrees with me. Increasing the PPI beyond a certain point is useless, and with higher and higher resolutions come sacrifices in terms of computing power and battery life.

I expect the new Skylake MBPs will increase resolution only if the screen size itself increases, but the pixel density will remain relatively the same as current MBPs. Just because the iGPUs on the new Skylake chips can support those resolutions doesn't mean there isn't a cost associated with doing so.
Click to expand...

We saw this already with the 12" MB. Apple could have easily gone the PC spec war route and tried to put QHD+ but instead chose to keep the PPI constant.
 
TheralSadurns said:
Oh I don't fall in ANY of these categories.

I currently own a 17" MBP with 1920x1200px resolution. I kept it until now because the 16:10 equilavent of FullHD is the perfect amount of usable workspace for a notebook. Give me something with a workspace of 1280x800 or 1440x900 etc. and I just feel uncomfortably constrained.

The current 15" rMBP can scale to a 1920x1200px equiv. workspace, but it cannot natively render the @2x assets at 1:1 pixels. And here it is quite obvious that it is not a native resolution. It's still better than most displays of yesteryear, but compared to the rMBPs native @2x rendering it doesn't look too good.

With that being the case I simply want 1920x1200 @2x aka 3840x2400. Not because others have it. Not because I want a (mega)pixel race. I simply want a 1920x1200 workspace with 1:1 pixel rendering @2x.

Everything that's going beyond that dramatically would not yield any real advantage, save for a good looking spec-sheet.
Click to expand...

I posted the same thing a few pages ago. The 13" should atleast move to 2880x1440 if not 3360x2100
 
OSX7 said:
You can't be serious?....right?, right?!!
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I'm not really sure why people in this forum are so credulous and keep believing these trolls that claim to have inside info on Apple's plans. They all have the exact same formula: brand new user profile + predictions that are a strange combination of obvious/highly likely and impossible/nonsensical. This most recent troll's predictions weren't as stupid as some of the others, but he still messed up when he was creating his magic unicorn screen resolutions.

That being said, even if a troll was smarter than this last one and his prediction sounded 100% plausible, why would people believe them? Does anyone really think some mysterious forum member will have inside info before Mark Gurman, Ming-Chi Kuo, or another similar trustworthy source? C'mon. If they did have true info and wanted to let people know about it, they would send that info directly to Gurman et al for more notoriety. They're not going to post it here in this forum. The only inside info I would even consider believing from here is retail channel info (dwindling stock/new product codes at Best Buy, etc.) and benchmarks (and even those can be faked).
 
  • Like
Reactions: OSX7, xdragon, TechZeke and 3 others
One thing that's going to be interesting is how they tier the CPUs for the 15". If you look at the appropriate CPUs: http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/93336,93340,93341 you can see that the difference between them is a 2MB increase in L3 cache from the 6770HQ to the 6870HQ, but otherwise it's just a 100MHz speed bump between each CPU, and a 50MHz bump in the graphics. Hardly worth the ~$200 increase in the current 15" rMBP.

For reference, there's a 300MHz clock speed jump in the current tiers. In this case, the middle of the line CPU might be the best option.

Now, if you believe they're going to use mobile Xeons, it gets more interesting: http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/93336,93340,93341,93358,93359,93354

The base and turbo frequencies pick up where the i7s leave off. I wonder if Apple will offer the i7-6770HQ, i7-6870HQ, and the Xeon E3-1575M v5 as the upgrade tiers?

Pure speculation of course. :)
 
unpretentious said:
One thing that's going to be interesting is how they tier the CPUs for the 15". If you look at the appropriate CPUs: http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/93336,93340,93341 you can see that the difference between them is a 2MB increase in L3 cache from the 6770HQ to the 6870HQ, but otherwise it's just a 100MHz speed bump between each CPU, and a 50MHz bump in the graphics. Hardly worth the ~$200 increase in the current 15" rMBP.

For reference, there's a 300MHz clock speed jump in the current tiers. In this case, the middle of the line CPU might be the best option.

Now, if you believe they're going to use mobile Xeons, it gets more interesting: http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/93336,93340,93341,93358,93359,93354

The base and turbo frequencies pick up where the i7s leave off. I wonder if Apple will offer the i7-6770HQ, i7-6870HQ, and the Xeon E3-1575M v5 as the upgrade tiers?

Pure speculation of course. :)
Click to expand...
2MB level 3 is a decent bit. Im sure it affects performance enough to be worth it for some.

An extra 100mhz is never worth it imo.
 
PTLove said:
2MB level 3 is a decent bit. Im sure it affects performance enough to be worth it for some.

An extra 100mhz is never worth it imo.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but there are three CPU tiers in the current 15". Maybe they will use the Xeon as the highest upgrade tier. Otherwise, $200 increase in price for 100MHz? That would be a terrible value, but not necessarily unlikely. :)

The issue with using the Xeon is that they'll have two different chipsets to deal with, and I'm not sure if they'll do that. You can see some of the chipset differences here: http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/90583,90584,90593.

Since all we can do is speculate, I do wonder if they will increase the max memory. Skylake mobile now supports up to 64GB. But a bigger concern for me would be if they decide to adopt DDR4. They had the option in the skylake iMac and went with DDR3L, likely to save cost. I hope they go with DDR4 in this case due to the potential for higher memory bandwidth, (although I doubt you could see the difference in the real world) and the lower voltage for power savings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xdragon
unpretentious said:
Agreed, but there are three CPU tiers in the current 15". Maybe they will use the Xeon as the highest upgrade tier. Otherwise, $200 increase in price for 100MHz? That would be a terrible value, but not necessarily unlikely. :)

The issue with using the Xeon is that they'll have two different chipsets to deal with, and I'm not sure if they'll do that. You can see some of the chipset differences here: http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/90583,90584,90593.

Since all we can do is speculate, I do wonder if they will increase the max memory. Skylake mobile now supports up to 64GB. But a bigger concern for me would be if they decide to adopt DDR4. They had the option in the skylake iMac and went with DDR3L, likely to save cost. I hope they go with DDR4 in this case due to the potential for higher memory bandwidth, (although I doubt you could see the difference in the real world) and the lower voltage for power savings.
Click to expand...

I dont believe skylake supports LPDDR4. It only supports DDR4, and Apple is sure to use LPDDR3 over DDR4 due to the battery savings.
 
Exile714 said:
While we're talking about it, why does anyone think the resolution will increase? People who push for higher-than-Retina resolution fall into a few categories:

1) People who believe the human eye can resolve higher resolutions than Retina at the stated distances,
2) people who believe the stated distances are wrong, and
3) people who believe resolution should increase with every iteration of technology regardless of actual usefulness.

I'm not any of those people. And I think, from everything I've seen so far, Apple agrees with me. Increasing the PPI beyond a certain point is useless, and with higher and higher resolutions come sacrifices in terms of computing power and battery life.

I expect the new Skylake MBPs will increase resolution only if the screen size itself increases, but the pixel density will remain relatively the same as current MBPs. Just because the iGPUs on the new Skylake chips can support those resolutions doesn't mean there isn't a cost associated with doing so.
Click to expand...

I want a resolution increase for scaling purposes. Otherwise I agree with your point for the most part.
[doublepost=1454959308][/doublepost]
NJPT said:
Definitely trolling. Not surprising at all given his user account was created yesterday.

The biggest clue to his lies is his proposed screen resolutions:
14": 2560 * 4096 Pixels
16": 2880 * 4608 Pixels

The max resolution the Skylake U/HQ chips with Iris 550/Iris Pro 580 support is 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz. I'm not aware of any Skylake laptops that top Ultra HD (3840 x 2160), even gaming rigs like Alienware's 17" lineup. There's no way Apple gets 4608 x 2880 into a 16" MBP without a dGPU, and as has been rehashed ad nauseum in this forum, it's at least questionable if we'll even get a dGPU in a high end model.
Click to expand...

And even if there is a dGPU (still betting yes), Apple woudn't release a Macbook Pro that has its dGPU always active. The battery would be dead so fast. Imagine Tim Cook up on stage talking about how the 16" Macbook has a three-hour battery life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPT
PTLove said:
I dont believe skylake supports LPDDR4. It only supports DDR4, and Apple is sure to use LPDDR3 over DDR4 due to the battery savings.
Click to expand...

Right, but LPDDR3 is the same voltage as DDR4. (1.2v) Not sure of the actual numbers as far as operating power consumption, but they should be similar, with higher bandwidth for DDR4 to boot.
 
NJPT said:
Definitely trolling. Not surprising at all given his user account was created yesterday.

The biggest clue to his lies is his proposed screen resolutions:
14": 2560 * 4096 Pixels
16": 2880 * 4608 Pixels

The max resolution the Skylake U/HQ chips with Iris 550/Iris Pro 580 support is 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz. I'm not aware of any Skylake laptops that top Ultra HD (3840 x 2160), even gaming rigs like Alienware's 17" lineup. There's no way Apple gets 4608 x 2880 into a 16" MBP without a dGPU, and as has been rehashed ad nauseum in this forum, it's at least questionable if we'll even get a dGPU in a high end model.
Click to expand...


To be honest, on-paper hardware limits haven't stopped Apple before - they've gotten custom clocked/configured chips from Intel in the past and I'm not sure max single display output resolution is a hard stop limit that cannot be pushed.

Just playing devil's advocate. If they ditch the dGPU I'm going to reluctantly Hackintosh the best looking Windows laptop I can :/
 
cmChimera said:
And even if there is a dGPU (still betting yes), Apple woudn't release a Macbook Pro that has its dGPU always active. The battery would be dead so fast. Imagine Tim Cook up on stage talking about how the 16" Macbook has a three-hour battery life.
Click to expand...

Great point. And yet Quasselstripper is claiming the MBP will somehow get both 4608 x 2880 resolution and all-day battery life. I guess the laws of physics don't apply when you've got inside information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WRONG
unpretentious said:
Right, but LPDDR3 is the same voltage as DDR4. (1.2v) Not sure of the actual numbers as far as operating power consumption, but they should be similar, with higher bandwidth for DDR4 to boot.
Click to expand...
Doesnt LPDDR3 still have much lower idle consumption though? I may be wrong.
 
Dydegu said:
I've had two dreams now regarding new Mac laptops.

The one last night showcased a MacBook with a removable screen, similar to the Surface Book. I believe it had a touch version of OS X, "OS Xt."

So... pretty much confirmed I guess.
Click to expand...
I think we can all agree that this isn't something we want. So god damn it if you just dream-jinxed the new MBP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dydegu
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back