Mobile Broadwells support 32GB LPDDR, mobile Skylakes and Kaby Lakes support 64GB LPDDR. The problem is that to achieve 32GB one had to insert 4 modules as only 8GB modules were available. Apple didn't like it because it would've affected battery life badly (not only two more modules draining battery which is not that bad but they also had to free some space inside the physical laptop for them).
Let's hope these are really all the reasons. :/ I want to see a 32GB MBP'17!
There's already room for a larger battery in the current 15" model. The largest that could be put in any laptop is only 23 WH more, so it wouldn't entirely make up for the extra power needed for 32 GB desktop RAM when it's actually in use. No doubt many would be OK with that.
Where do you find any evidence that a laptop Skylake or Kaby Lake chip can use 32GB LPDDR3? The Dell XPS with Kaby Lake uses DDR4, which is desktop RAM, and did the same with Skylake. If it were possible to use LPDDR3 to get to 32, I expect they would do that instead, because it would improve the battery life. Four modules don't use significantly more power than two of the same total size.
ark.intel.com.
Nope, doesn't break down the limit for each type of RAM. Anything else? Such as a laptop actually doing what you say has been possible for years?
The Dell 9560 came out after the 16GB chips you're talking about, and the question remains why they didn't just use four slots.
LPDDR3 is the same speed as DDR3, LPDDR4 the same as DDR4. DDR3 is in theory slower than DDR4, but in practice that hasn't been observed.
Please quote me saying this. I haven't said that. Please stop misattributing me statements.
1 day or 2 days after?
I've explained the implications of 4 slots vs 2 slots above, please reread.Please explain what you mean "in practice"? Because it clearly is slower other things being equal. However there is always a "but..." and I don't want to do your work.
Incredible. I already quoted you. It's the part that starts "mobile Skylakes and Kaby Lakes support 64GB LPDDR."
Just amazing. Obviously what you said doesn't explain why they don't use four slots, since as I very plainly said, it wouldn't use significantly more energy. I take it you have no answer, as usual.
More hilarity! Again, in practice the claimed difference doesn't manifest. See for example the Power, Heat And Efficiency section at this link:
Please. Quote. Where. I. Stated. A. Laptop. With. At. Least. 32GB. LPDDR. Has. Been. Available. For. Years. I've actually stated quite the opposite and even explained why.
Here is the quote. I've even specifically stated that 4 modules draining more battery is a lesser of a problem.
It's even more hilarious considering I've specifically pointed to you what to do not to embarrass yourself, you could've silently reread my posts, find out you're wrong and don't continue this flame. Now your embarrassment is proven and displayed. Sorry for that, I tried to save you.
Indeed more hilarity - up to 6,6% more performance due to memory alone.
System Info shows two separate 8GB DIMM modules. It does not specifically say that they use Dual Channel but I imply they do otherwise performance would be much worse and it'd look stupid to have 2 modules, dual channel CPU but use 1 channel.
Just incredible. I nowhere said you said that, obviously. Possible isn't the same as available. And there's no evidence there's too little room for four chips, especially in larger laptops.
I can't tell which problem you refer to. The MBP could use 32 GB the same way the Dell does, by using two modules of 16 GB desktop RAM. The notion advanced above that laptop Skylake and Kaby Lake chips could use four modules of 8 GB is purely speculative, not backed by any informed analysis I've seen. The idea they could use two modules of 16 GB LPDDR3 is also speculative, actually.
Stop playing with words. If you prefer "possible" rather than "available", fine.
No more looking per your request, provide the info yourself. You asking to look has only led to proving you're wrong so far so not worth doing.
We were talking with @TheOkeland about the possibility to see 32GB of LPDDR in MBP'17 considering the most minor changes Apple might make - most notably having Kaby Lake instead of Skylake - and 16GB LPDDR3 modules being available.
No, you haven't. Stop lying.
Yes, and it remains speculative whether Kaby Lake can accommodate 32 GB of LPDDR3, even with the new modules.
Oh, we don't (and we can't) refuse you the right to speculate. Please do it if you wish.
The intel spec sheet doesn't break down how much the chip can use of each kind of RAM. Whether there should be any difference I don't know. Analyses of the RAM limits in the MBP haven't said it was awaiting 16 GB modules of LPDDR3, but that may only be because the authors don't know either.
As I pointed out above, there are laptops with plenty of space for four modules, but I've haven't heard of any using four. And as I said before, four modules don't use significantly more energy than two of the same total capacity, not that this either would stop some manufacturers.
The speculative part remains whether the laptop chips can accommodate them. I'm not saying they can't, only that we don't know. 32 GB has been possible for the MBP since Skylake, but Apple has chosen not to use it because of the battery life.
I think I'd prefer the new ports, four instead of two, but I'm sure many would like the older ones more.