I think they should just replace the two TB2 ports with USB C and keep all the other ports, including the two USB A ports, MagSafe, HDMI, and headphone jack. They could remove the SDXC card slot if they want to as long as they either offer more storage, or include an adapter for it.
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.
Waiting for Skylake MBP thread
- Thread starter adildacoolset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
So who's ready to do some 4K gaming on the new 15" rMBP with gtx1080 watercooled!? totally gonna happen.
If they ship TB3, why not
The only thing the new MBP should not include is a "compromise" of any kind.
If anything that iFixIt or any blogger discovers after the first week these MBP are on sale, I will not buy one.
Surely I will not preorder one.
Oh, by the way ... this will be true for the keyboard as well.
If the MBP uses the dome switch MacBook keyboard, I'll switch.
If anything that iFixIt or any blogger discovers after the first week these MBP are on sale, I will not buy one.
Surely I will not preorder one.
Oh, by the way ... this will be true for the keyboard as well.
If the MBP uses the dome switch MacBook keyboard, I'll switch.
Exactly. These Skylake CPUs that the MBPs might use are new. Anyone who thinks that Apple will skip Skylake for Kaby Lake better be ready to wait until early 2017 at the least. The first round of Kaby Lake CPUs are not appropriate for the MBPs.
That is, unless Intel decides to grace use with all variants of Kaby Lake at launch. Something they've never done.
We've discussed iGPU vs dGPU, we've also discussed the possibility of a 15W CPU in the 13" but what about a 28W CPU in the 15"? I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Apple would be able to make very thin MacBooks by using 28W CPU:s instead of the current 47W.
If we assume that the next 15" will drop the dGPU option (just an assumption), then the 28W vs 45W is basically a dual-core + HD550 vs quad-core + HD580. For GPU performance, the HD580 is going to outperform the HD550 but what exactly is the practical benefit of a quad-core CPU? Of course multi-threaded applications will be able to take advantage of the quad-core but what kind of applications are these? AFAIK quad-cores will not matter for video editing, photo editing or 3D rendering because these can be done a lot faster and more efficient using the iGPU. I doubt even games can benefit a lot from quad-cores because the GPU will be the limiting factor and benchmarks have shown that GPU:s are more important than CPU:s when it comes to gaming. Even web browsing isn't much faster on the quad-cores because internet speed is the limiting factor most of the time.
My point is that most MBP buyers will rather have a very thin and light 15" MBP with very long battery life than a thicker and heavier MBP with a quad-core CPU that is rarely beneficial and with a faster iGPU. I personally would like to have a thin and light 15" MBP but I would rather have at least the HD580 iGPU. I know it would be really bad for the power users if Apple decided to drop both the dGPU and quad-cores from their most powerful laptop but I just wanted to share my thoughts with you guys.
I've seen a lot of people here wanting the 13" MBP to have a quad-core CPU, what are your reasons / use cases?
If we assume that the next 15" will drop the dGPU option (just an assumption), then the 28W vs 45W is basically a dual-core + HD550 vs quad-core + HD580. For GPU performance, the HD580 is going to outperform the HD550 but what exactly is the practical benefit of a quad-core CPU? Of course multi-threaded applications will be able to take advantage of the quad-core but what kind of applications are these? AFAIK quad-cores will not matter for video editing, photo editing or 3D rendering because these can be done a lot faster and more efficient using the iGPU. I doubt even games can benefit a lot from quad-cores because the GPU will be the limiting factor and benchmarks have shown that GPU:s are more important than CPU:s when it comes to gaming. Even web browsing isn't much faster on the quad-cores because internet speed is the limiting factor most of the time.
My point is that most MBP buyers will rather have a very thin and light 15" MBP with very long battery life than a thicker and heavier MBP with a quad-core CPU that is rarely beneficial and with a faster iGPU. I personally would like to have a thin and light 15" MBP but I would rather have at least the HD580 iGPU. I know it would be really bad for the power users if Apple decided to drop both the dGPU and quad-cores from their most powerful laptop but I just wanted to share my thoughts with you guys.
I've seen a lot of people here wanting the 13" MBP to have a quad-core CPU, what are your reasons / use cases?
Most? You'd be in the minority with that opinion.
If you want something thinner, get a rMB or MBA, perhaps the rumored 15" models will be released at wwdc. I'm here for performance on the go.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-your-next-laptop-should-have-a-quad-core-processor/
These days quad-cores outperform dual cores even in single-thread scenarios.
And if performance isn't a factor for you, why not just go for the MacBook? The MacBook Pro, especially the 15'', is for users who need more performance. The 13'' is kind of a funny duck because it's a "Pro" device but it gets lower specs because of its form factor. In the past, that made the 13'' a "Pro" device with a consumer focus...
In my opinion (and doubtless Apple disagrees when you consider the Pro iPads), the 13'' MBP should go away or become a large MacBook, rather than an underpowered MacBook Pro.
But really all I'm saying is, if performance is something that matters to you, quad core is the way to go.
Yeah the 13" MBP is always in an odd position. Id be fine if théy replaced it with a 14" rMB with a 15 W Core i processor. And have the 15" maxed out. Prolly not gonna happen though, as itll leave a great power gap between 15 w& 47W. I bet well see 28W rMBP. But a 14" core i MacBook is a great hypothetical option as well.
Ok... How about this? NO MORE MACBOOK PRO???
Think about it: 12'' MacBook core M, 14'' MacBook 28W core i, 16'' MacBook 45W core i?
I mean, it doesn't change anything in terms of the devices we're expecting to see, and it certainly doesn't make sense from a product naming standpoint... Which is why Apple just might do it anyway! The naming conventions lately have been all over the place, so I expect something illogical to happen in June. If not this, then something else that will leave us all scratching our heads saying "why" and "who could have predicted that."
I wasn't referring to Pro as just a naming convention. I meant to highlight power and chassis structure. If they go with a "pro'' build, then the notebook wont be nearly as thin/slanted as the rMB, and can fit in a 28W/45W core i processor.
Last edited:
Well, I think I just underestimated the performance gains of a quad-core as I have not had many chances to test the difference between the 13" and 15". Performance is definitely important to me as I think even the 15W Haswell chips are too slow. I would rather go with the more powerful laptop if I had the option to choose.
I've just seen many people getting the 15" without caring about the difference in performance from the 13". I realize I shouldn't just assume that most buyers would be better of with portability and battery life but I also wouldn't be so sure about the other way. I think there is a big market for a 15" MBA.
I could be wrong, but I think by saying Skylake is old people mean the name. Obviously they would be very new to Apple, but not to the tech world. While Apple is rolling out Skylake rMBP, other companies will be rolling out Kaby Lake shortly after.
It's not Apple's fault, but they are way behind.
It's not Apple's fault, but they are way behind.
I know this thread is, like, 4 million posts long... But seriously, every three pages someone comes around not understanding that there are many Skylake variants and the performance versions are only now coming out. Seriously... just... There should be a sticky or something.
Don't post again until you read and UNDERSTAND this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_(microarchitecture)
I do what I want. Get over yourself. I am NOT the one to try. Understand that.
IMHO this is not the case.
15W dual-core single-threaded performance is a little less than 45W quad-core (2.2-2.4 GHz base up to 3.2-3.4 GHz turbo vs 2.6-2.8 GHz base up to 3.5-3.7 GHz turbo respectively i. e. minus 300-400 MHz both base and turbo).
28W dual-core single-threaded performance is, on the contrary, much more than 45W quad-core (3.3 GHz base up to 3.6 turbo vs 2.6-2.8 GHz base up to 3.5-3.7 GHz turbo respectively i. e. plus 500-700 base and +-100 MHz turbo).
[doublepost=1462656449][/doublepost]
Dunning and Kruger want to have a word with you.
whatever that means
That means go try to talk down to someone else. Not happening with me. He obviously has insecurity issues.
I want to support your opinion but on a totally different reason.
At the moment Intel only has 1 (one) 28W Skylake CPU which means if Apple chooses to use it in 13" they won't be able to offer CPU upgrade and will lose money. I'm not sure if it's big enough though.
But to think I don't see any other beautiful solution. If they base 13" on 15W CPUs it's no longer Pro. Air at best.
If they base 13" on 15W CPUs but allow to upgrade to 28W, they will have to waste 13W TDP on the base model - I don't see them developing different TDP design for base and BTO 13".
If they somehow base 13" on 28W and allow to upgrade to 45W (which is very unlikely), the same problem with wasted 17W TDP design arises. And also performance distinction between 13" and 15" becomes very small even if they use Xeons for 15" which is very bad for product placement.
If they base 13" on 45W performance distinction between 13" and 15" will be negligible.
To be fair there is no good solution here.
[doublepost=1462657529][/doublepost]
Are you, by chance, a certified psychologist?
Huh? Weirdest reply in a long while...
Where do you get that there is only one 28W Skylake? I see 4 28W Skylake with Iris 550 on Intel ARK and you can already get the Vaio Z flip in 2 processor options, i5 and i7.
there's pretty much a guarantee there will be compromises to make it slimmer.
- Status