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

Waiting for the 2017 MBP (Kaby Lake / Cannonlake / Coffee Lake??)

Now that the 2016 Models are out, will you buy a 2016 Model?

  • No, They increased the cost far to much. The Apple i once new loved appears to have disappeared.

    Votes: 465 36.6%

  • No, I really wanted a Kaby Lake processor, ill wait till 2017

    Votes: 325 25.6%

  • Yes, Im ordering a 2016 now, or already placed an order already.

    Votes: 482 37.9%
  • Total voters
    1,272
Status
Not open for further replies.
zarathu said:
Do you have dyslexia? Its treatable with the right education and some medication. I never said I wanted a 25lb laptop. I SAID that I used to carry around a lot of stuff, still do including books, and that even at my advanced age of 68 carrying around a 4.5 lb laptop with all the other junk is no big deal. I said its really hard to tell the difference between 1/2 pound, and implied that all this discussion is just wild discussion.

Oddly I'm not even disagreeing with anything you have said except when you don't even bother to read my posts before posting "alternative facts" on my position, or reading between lines which are not there..
Click to expand...

Wow. You completely missed the point and resorted to insults. I don't think this will get anywhere.
 
It was nice to see HP listened with the Spectre x360 15. They actually made it a little thicker so it would have better battery life, which was what customers wanted.
 
Sanpete said:
It's a mistake to think Apple didn't use desktop RAM only because of thinness and lightness, mythology notwithstanding. It would make the machine bigger and heavier, but it would also reduce battery life even with a maximum-sized battery.
Click to expand...

No. The battery would last less precisely because of thinnes and lightness compromises.
If they did put in 32gb of RAM and keep 99 mAh battery (instead of cutting it of 25%) by having same thickness of last year's model the battery will last more...

And before you continue with your strawmen, noone here wants a 6kg laptop...I (and many) will be ok with 2015 form factor, or that of other PC laptop with more powerful internals (CPU, Nvidia 10X0 GPU, more RAM)...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheralSadurns
ugru said:
No. The battery would last less precisely because of thinnes and lightness compromises.
If they did put in 32gb of RAM and keep 99 mAh battery (instead of cutting it of 25%) by having same thickness of last year's model the battery will last more...
Click to expand...

Math is against you on this. Over a period of 10 hours, 32 GB RAM DDR4 would use 5 (in idle) to 84 (under full load) more watt-hours than 16 GB LPDDR3. The larger battery would add 23 watt-hours, not nearly enough to make up for the extra power required in moderate use. Check the XPS 9550 for an example of how using desktop RAM affects battery life.

ugru said:
And before you continue with your strawmen, noone here wants a 6kg laptop...I (and many) will be ok with 2015 form factor, or that of other PC laptop with more powerful internals (CPU, Nvidia 10X0 GPU, more RAM)...
Click to expand...

You entirely missed the point. I nowhere said or implied anyone here wants a very heavy laptop. Rather my assumption has been that you and others here don't want that, thus the flaw in the logic of the arguments I responded to, which would support a preference for it.
 
Eason85 said:
The guys responsible for the macbook battery debacle have been fired, and an improved battery design should be ready for next release, so I am more than fine with waiting.
Click to expand...

If Steve Jobs was still around, one of his spectacular email responses would have fixed the battery issue on day 1. (Well, not really, but yeah)

Customer:
"Steve, I spent $2,500 on this computer, I am really unhappy with the battery life, and your update was removing the battery meter...what gives?!"

Steve:
"Just be glad it isn't exploding.
Think Positive,
--Steve"
 
  • Like
Reactions: navaira, WRONG, LethalOptical and 1 other person
Sanpete said:
You entirely missed the point. I nowhere said or implied anyone here wants a very heavy laptop. Rather my assumption has been that you and others here don't want that, thus the flaw in the logic of the arguments I responded to, which would support a preference for it.
Click to expand...

You sure?

Sanpete said:
Obviously if you didn't care about weight and size yourself you'd get a ten-pound portable that takes 64 GB RAM and has desktop components. You may not like the balance Apple chooses, but obviously many do. Complain all you want, but don't pretend there's some objective fact in your favor. It's just your subjective preference.
Click to expand...

Sanpete said:
Thinner than what? As I just said, obviously if you didn't care about weight and size yourself you'd get a ten-pound portable that takes 64 GB RAM and has desktop components. Is that what you've done? No, because you do care about it. There's nothing stupid about Apple balancing that with other things.
Click to expand...

Sanpete said:
Yet more treatment of subjective preferences as though they had special objective validity. Then I suppose a 25-pound laptop would be just the thing for you. Imagine all the RAM you could get in it!
Click to expand...
 
Sanpete said:
Math is against you on this. Over a period of 10 hours, 32 GB RAM DDR4 would use 5 (in idle) to 84 (under full load) more watt-hours than 16 GB LPDDR3. The larger battery would add 23 watt-hours, not nearly enough to make up for the extra power required in moderate use. Check the XPS 9550 for an example of how using desktop RAM affects battery life.



You entirely missed the point. I nowhere said or implied anyone here wants a very heavy laptop. Rather my assumption has been that you and others here don't want that, thus the flaw in the logic of the arguments I responded to, which would support a preference for it.
Click to expand...


Your assumptions hold true for me at least ;)
But that is just me and my preference, I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else.

I'm not necessarily against bigger laptops, in my time I've lugged around 17" SLI Alienware beasts that literally weighed more than an iMac.

But doing that reassured me of one thing, I never want to again. I'm all in favour of thinner, lighter and smaller, so long as it doesn't have too much of a negative impact on performance.

Personally I don't think the new MacBook is a bad trade off, or I wouldn't be throwing ridiculous amounts of money at it. By all accounts it benchmarks a decent amount higher than the 27" iMac I currently use and that system manages to cope with my workload, which on an average day includes Xcode, Autodesk Fusion 360, Photoshop, Illustrator, Pages, Numbers, Final Cut Pro, TextWrangler, VM Ware Fusion running Win10. Along with Safari which normally has at least 10 tabs open, iTunes, Plex, Jump Desktop and Duet Display running.
The majority of that list is usually open all of the time, I jump between things a fair bit. It's maybe not as demanding a workload as some people but it's enough for me.

So if the MacBook I've ordered performs even close to the benchmarks, I'll be delighted. I don't even care if I have to have a few less things on the go at once.
Hopefully I won't have long to wait to find out now, it's just moved to preparing for dispatch, I'm getting excited now :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanpete
Sanpete said:
Math is against you on this. Over a period of 10 hours, 32 GB RAM DDR4 would use 5 (in idle) to 84 (under full load) more watt-hours than 16 GB LPDDR3. The larger battery would add 23 watt-hours, not nearly enough to make up for the extra power required in moderate use. Check the XPS 9550 for an example of how using desktop RAM affects battery life.
Click to expand...

From what I last read I thought DDR4 was supposed to be around 50% more efficient than DDR3, is that wrong? Maybe Apple should stick with DDR3 until DDR5 comes out...
 
TRDGT4Writer said:
From what I last read I thought DDR4 was supposed to be around 50% more efficient than DDR3, is that wrong?
Click to expand...

DDR4 is a little more efficient than DDR3 for ordinary use, but not much, less than 10%. But the MBP uses LPDDR3 (LP for low power), which uses 70% of the power DDR3 does. It's actually complicated by several states the RAM can be in, but low-power RAM designed for laptops definitely saves battery life over both DDR3 and DDR4.
 
Last edited:
Sanpete said:
DDR4 is a little more efficient than DDR3 for ordinary use, but not much, less than 10%. But the MBP uses LPDDR3 (LP for low power), which is 70% more efficient than DDR3. It's actually complicated by several states the RAM can be in, but low-power RAM designed for laptops definitely saves battery life over both DDR3 and DDR4.
Click to expand...

Interesting...Will LPDDR4 RAM take over or will LPDDR3 be used overall? Thanks for the explanation!:D
 
zarathu said:
As it says below, I have a late 2013 MBP. I really don't see the point in it being thinner. I mean shaving off 6mm, who cares? There's a point where they'll have to go to solid beryllium to make it strong enough to be that thin. People who complain that it is too heavy to lug around must be pretty weakling people. All through junior high, high school, and college I often lugged up to 25 lb of books and gear. I still do(50 years later). If you need a workstation, then you'll need an iMac or a MacPro. Once its on a table or my lap I don't notice another 1/2 lb.

I find Apple's search for the ultimate thin-ness to be just dumb, but its not really a problem for me. It is their choice.
Click to expand...

Same here. I cannot justify upgrading my late 2013 MBP because it doesn't feel like an improvement due to the substantial number of changes that I personally consider more of a deterioration.
 
Sanpete said:
DDR4 is a little more efficient than DDR3 for ordinary use, but not much, less than 10%. But the MBP uses LPDDR3 (LP for low power), which is 70% more efficient than DDR3. It's actually complicated by several states the RAM can be in, but low-power RAM designed for laptops definitely saves battery life over both DDR3 and DDR4.
Click to expand...

LPDDR3 uses 15% less than DDR3L in power when active. DDR4 is 37% more power efficient that DDR3L. The only advantage LPDDR3 has is in standby power consumption (lid closed).

http://i.imgur.com/AVjraML.png
 
Ries said:
LPDDR3 uses 15% less than DDR3L in power when active. DDR4 is 37% more power efficient that DDR3L. The only advantage LPDDR3 has is in standby power consumption (lid closed).

http://i.imgur.com/AVjraML.png
Click to expand...

Ha, well, I should have said LPDDR3 uses 70% as much power as DDR3, not 70% less, so I'll edit that. I didn't take into account the amount of data transferred (but I suppose I should be more clear about that in some calculations I did elsewhere). Thanks for the link.

Some of your link's figures about DDR4 don't fit what I've seen elsewhere. Your source uses different speed RAM for its comparisons, which may affect results. See the Power, Heat And Efficiency section at the link below, especially the fourth graph. The link shows results in practical use, and is consistent with what I've seen in other tests--not much difference in practice, even adjusting for throughput.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-fatal1ty-z170-gaming-k4-d3-ddr4-vs-ddr3,4431-2.html

Edit: I should add that Apple claims DDR4 isn't suitable for a laptop because of energy use. If that were only about sleep, it wouldn't matter so much, since Macs go into standby and power off the RAM after three hours of sleep. Might matter some for Power Nap and the like, I guess, but these would still be small effects on overall battery life, making Apple's claim very odd.
 
Last edited:
i think those cpu are for the upcoming mac mini and not macbook pro, apple will never update so soon the macbook pro
 
fokmik said:
Mac mini uses mobile cpu !!
Click to expand...
again, have you clicked and checked the link?

from the blog post:

I checked the perf-bias setting (5) and that suggests that the data is not for Mac desktop models. On desktop models like the iMac perf-bias is set to 1 (highest performance).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back