Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
there's pretty much a guarantee there will be compromises to make it slimmer.
Oh sure. I believe so as well. But if these compromises lead to a product I don't like to use, than I'm out.
And the keyboard is a very important part of that. I do not like the MacBook butterfly switches at all.
That's just my personal opinion, but it makes me kind of angry that Apple seems to force every design decision on every product line these days.
 
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.
Hm, you're right. My bad. For some reason I thought 13" only include i7 like 15" but they do use i5 as well.
 
Just a thought:
What if Apple would replace all ports with 4 USB-C ports and supply every MacBook Pro with a multiport adapter?

A lot of people in here are afraid of/ don't want Apple changing the ports, but would you be happy if you got a free adapter? (not saying this is happening, but if)
I use USB A sometimes, and it would be nice to have an adapter for those times, Apple could use USB-C without me worrying.

Yes, its not gonna happen. I've seen plenty of laptop manufacturers include adapters, Apple is not one of them. The rMB includes one f*cking USB-C port and they STILL didn't include an adapter.

**** Apple.

Agreed.

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.

lol wut? Why are you buying a 15" rMBP when you want an Air? What proof do you have that 15" users want thinner and lighter on an already thin and light machine over performance?
 
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they move the 13" Pro to 15W chips this year. The benchmarks show this year's 15W they would likely use (6260U) is only 1-3% weaker than last year's base model CPU, probably the iGPU is better.

Going to 15W would allow them to make significant reduction in size of the machine while providing the same battery life.

Smaller machine = less shipping costs. The kind of micro-optimizations that a Tim Cook style CEO lives for.

The combination of Jony Ive and Tim Cook trends towards smaller machines whenever possible, Tim doesn't geek out over the specs like Jobs did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wowereit
Anyone else notice how :apple:Watch and :apple:Music are in the bold San Francisco font, and both have :apple: in front of them. Why is it that iPhone, MacBook, iMac...etc. are all in a light Myriad font without the :apple: logo. I know this all seems superficial in comparison to the matter at hand, BUT, I'm a sceptic for these little details. What's going on with that?

And what's up with the elongated esc key on the new MacBooks. it looks out of place...and forced. Elongating the power key makes more sense.

Sadliy, it seems their marketing and design aren't coherent anymore.
 
Last edited:
All this hype, you guys make it out to be like the new MBPr will cure deadliest diseases.

Reality is, it will just get a 10% performance bump, new TB3 and slightly lighter with an extra hour of battery. Maybe a choice of colours. The 15" will just get another slightly less garbage dGPU.

I can't wait to read all your disappointed comments in 36 days.
 
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?



What you want my friend is a MacBook Air. The Pro losing Quad Cores... and I am gone!
I don't care about all the other things. I am also a hardcore Mac user and I loathe Windows. The reason I bought my 2011 17" MBP were the new Sandy Bridge Quads. Dual Core in a pro-level machine is absolutely laughable.
 
This thread makes me drink more. Who's with me!?

Count me in, my friend!

All this hype, you guys make it out to be like the new MBPr will cure deadliest diseases.

Not deadliest, but surely this wait is a disease.

And do not forget that many people here have a MBP from 2009/2010/2011.
They will see a lot of improvement.
 
If people (non Mac users by all accounts) want to compare apples/oranges/pears/lemons start a MBP/Dell/Lenovo/SurfaceBook thread.

Apple cannot be compared to X. If you want a PC, go and buy one. Apple will give us what we need. We accept it because Apple engineers know what's best for us. If you think you can blackmail the product/engineering team by choosing some other device with feature X, then you are not a Mac person. Go and save yourself $1000 and buy a PC with whatever GHz and compatibility you need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brad9893 and mjs402
Count me in, my friend!



Not deadliest, but surely this wait is a disease.

And do not forget that many people here have a MBP from 2009/2010/2011.
They will see a lot of improvement.

I agree the wait is a disease, especially when your friends turn up with fully spec'd Dell XPS 15 using Skylake and proper dGPU etc on a newly innovated bezel less design.

I love my Macs, but I've been a LONG time user to know whats coming, nothing special I guarantee you. My point was people are over HYPING this way too much.
 
What you want my friend is a MacBook Air. The Pro losing Quad Cores... and I am gone!
I don't care about all the other things. I am also a hardcore Mac user and I loathe Windows. The reason I bought my 2011 17" MBP were the new Sandy Bridge Quads. Dual Core in a pro-level machine is absolutely laughable.

As the instruction set becomes longer and longer with more exotic functions available, the core count isn't as significant. 16 cores != four times the performance over quad core (i.e. Amdahl's law).

If you have GPU type instruction units (dumb cores), doubling the core count can give approaching double the performance. But Skylake/Kabylake cores are much much more complicated and are coupled increasingly tightly to the proprietary Intel compiler to get the best performance.

Going more than quad core for general purpose computing (i.e. a laptop) doesn't make any sense these days. Especially if the machine is battery powered.

It's a bit like putting six engines on a 747 - more performance, sure. But the fuel bill will make flying the thing uneconomical. The 767 transatlantics I go on are all two engine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjs402
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.