Waiting for the 2018 MBP

[Poki]

28W chips with Iris Plus graphics have been leaked often enough by now that I think they are a given. As for 15W ones, there haven't been any actual leaks so far. But I'm not really concerned with those - even if they won't be available with Iris graphics, offering the 13" nTB MBP with the UHD620 iGPU differentiates them even better from the TB models, so win win for Apple.

 

[gobikerider]

28W chips with Iris Plus graphics have been leaked often enough by now that I think they are a given. As for 15W ones, there haven't been any actual leaks so far. But I'm not really concerned with those - even if they won't be available with Iris graphics, offering the 13" nTB MBP with the UHD620 iGPU differentiates them even better from the TB models, so win win for Apple.

Do you think Apple will refresh with a press release in March-April or do you expect another WWDC “oh we updated the mac lineup” like last year. I feel like it could go both ways at this point.

 

[Poki]

Do you think Apple will refresh with a press release in March-April or do you expect another WWDC “oh we updated the mac lineup” like last year. I feel like it could go both ways at this point.

With the competition already being on Intel's 8th gen CPUs since September, I guess Apple wants to update their notebooks as soon as possible. So my bet is that we'll see the new MBPs two to three weeks after Intel announces the 28W and 45W CPUs.

Comparing the current leaks with the leaks and actual releases from last year, I expect this to be within the March - April time frame. But given Intel's questionable ability to keep their schedule, it might take a little longer if we're unlucky.

 

[The Mercurian]

Do you think Apple will refresh with a press release in March-April or do you expect another WWDC “oh we updated the mac lineup” like last year. I feel like it could go both ways at this point.

Timing wise I don't know. But I think there will be a splash. I think the boosts of thse new chips are too big not to make a splash and I think there is more competition than there was so they need to do a 'hey look over here!' on it

 

[EugW]

28W chips with Iris Plus graphics have been leaked often enough by now that I think they are a given. As for 15W ones, there haven't been any actual leaks so far. But I'm not really concerned with those - even if they won't be available with Iris graphics, offering the 13" nTB MBP with the UHD620 iGPU differentiates them even better from the TB models, so win win for Apple.

? No leaks for 15W? Some Of the 8th Gen U series have been out for months. Quad-core. For example:

https://ark.intel.com/products/124968/Intel-Core-i7-8650U-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz

Or are you just talking about the GPU?

 

[Poki]

? No leaks for 15W? Some Of the 8th Gen U series have been out for months. Quad-core. For example:

https://ark.intel.com/products/124968/Intel-Core-i7-8650U-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz

Or are you just talking about the GPU?

I‘m talking about 15W with GT3e (Iris Plus) graphics.

 

[sputnikBA]

Do you think Apple will refresh with a press release in March-April or do you expect another WWDC “oh we updated the mac lineup” like last year. I feel like it could go both ways at this point.

My gut says laptop Macs in Spring, desktop Macs in WWDC. (Mac Pro gets a pre-announce like iMac Pro did, and ships later in the year).

 

[EugW]

I‘m talking about 15W with GT3e (Iris Plus) graphics.

Ah I see. I wonder how many customers even know the difference between GT2 vs GT3e. The differentiating factors for most will be dual-core vs quad-core and integrated GPU vs discrete GPU.

 

[Poki]

Ah I see. I wonder how many customers even know the difference between GT2 vs GT3e. The differentiating factors for most will be dual-core vs quad-core and integrated GPU vs discrete GPU.

That‘s what I think too. Especially since the UHD620 should be more than capable enough for all general computing purposes. I just want a quad core CPU after 13 years of dual core 13“ MBPs.

 

[sputnikBA]

See, this is exactly what I meant earlier:

Maybe they will update those with slightly better processors, what’s really interesting is an interview I found with Craig who says that the 13” none Touch Bar is aimed at those who would otherwise buy an Air, it’s interesting with this new rumour/report that Apple will release an updated Air.

Skip to 4:06 and you’ll see what I mean

"...We realised in the end, we had the perfect 13" laptop.
And in fact, when we compared it to the Macbook Air (which is so beloved),
We saw that we'd built a machine that was thinner, smaller, just as light,
And then had all the things, as users, we wished we could have in our Air, right.

It had the retina display™, that I think once you have one, its hard to turn back.
It had the fantastic trackpad, and then just all the performance.
And so we realised that for so many Macbook Air (potential) users, this was the right next step for them.
So we were able to create a configuration of the 13" [...] and its sort of the best Macbook Air you could have,
and i think a lot of people who wanted just a little something more from the Air are gonna find this the perfect 13 inch machine, "

— this is symptomatic of exactly whats wrong with Apple's lineup these days. Why is the solution to the Air's lackings another subset of the Macbook Pro? Why is there engineering effort being expended there instead of making the 12" MB (whose role is supposed to be a "better" MBA) more suitable for its role?

What is the point of the 12" Macbook? Why further blur the "Pro" lines by making a MBP that is effectively an MBA+? following down these roads is how you end up with Dell or HP's line up with 20 different models that you have to chose between "consumer and business" but all end up overlapping anyway. I know the lure of increasing marketshare by chasing different price brackets is strong, but they really need to simplify their lineup instead of increasing it.

/rant

 

[Dave245]

"...We realised in the end, we had the perfect 13" laptop.
And in fact, when we compared it to the Macbook Air (which is so beloved),
We saw that we'd built a machine that was thinner, smaller, just as light,
And then had all the things, as users, we wished we could have in our Air, right.

It had the retina display™, that i think once you have one its hard to turn back
it had the fantastic trackpad, and then just all the performance.
And so we realised that for so many Macbook Air (potential) users, this was the right next step for them.
So we were able to create a configuration of the 13" [...] and its sort of the best Macbook Air you could have,
and i think a lot of people who wanted just a little something more from the Air are gonna find this the perfect 13 inch machine, "

— this is symptomatic of exactly whats wrong with Apple's lineup these days. Why is the solution to the Air's lackings another subset of the Macbook Pro? Why is there engineering effort being expended there instead of making the 12" MB (whose role is supposed to be a "better" MBA) more suitable for its role?

Why is the 12” MacBook suppose to be a “Better Air” as you put it? The Macbook isn’t the Air, I do agree it’s odd that they think that way but put that machine under the Pro name. I wonder what this “New cheaper MacBook Air” is going to be, will it be a version of the MacBook but with a bigger screen or is it simply the Air with a price drop?

 

[sputnikBA]

Why is the 12” MacBook suppose to be a “Better Air” as you put it? The Macbook isn’t the Air, I do agree it’s odd that they think that way but put that machine under the Pro name. I wonder what this “New cheaper MacBook Air” is going to be, will it be a version of the MacBook but with a bigger screen or is it simply the Air with a price drop?

Because every one of the features that the Air was designed to embody have been superseded by the 12" MB.

The whole purpose of the Air was to be a testbed for their vision of vastly increased portability (all ssd, small size, low weight etc etc). In time that philosophy has gone on to influence redesigns of the remainder of their laptop models (to the arguable detriment of the MBPs). There is nothing that that the MBA has to offer that moves the rest of the line forward, or is technologically distinguishable from its siblings beyond that they can be made cheaply.

My argument is that they instead should have been focusing on bringing down the pricing of the MB in a similar trajectory.

 

[Dave245]

Because every one of the features that the Air was designed to embody have been superseded by the 12" MB.

the whole purpose of the Air was to be a testbed for their vision of vastly increased portability (all ssd, small size, low weight etc etc). In time that philosophy has been influenced redesigns of the remainder of their laptop models (to the arguable detriment of the MBPs). There is nothing that that the line has to offer that moves the rest of the line forward or is technologically distinguishable from its siblings beyond that they can make cheaply.

My argument is that they instead should have been focusing on bringing down the pricing of the MB in a similar trajectory

I think the 12” MacBook is suppose to be something different, don’t forget Apple had a “MacBook” before with the white plastic. They have removed the 11” Air so that the 13” remains, I guess we will see but maybe you are right and maybe Apple will add a bigger version of the MacBook to the lineup in order to replace the Air and a price drop on the 12” MacBook, is it possible that Ming-Chi Kuo misinterpretated it as a new Air rather than a 13” MacBook, that would certainly explain the “new” comment.

 

[Falhófnir]

That‘s what I think too. Especially since the UHD620 should be more than capable enough for all general computing purposes. I just want a quad core CPU after 13 years of dual core 13“ MBPs.

I‘m curious to know what you’ll be doing that can leverage a quad core chip, but isn’t demanding enough to warrant a 15”?

 

[EugW]

I‘m curious to know what you’ll be doing that can leverage a quad core chip, but isn’t demanding enough to warrant a 15”?

I will answer not for him but for others I know.

The 15” is a non-starter for many because of the (lack of) portability but they sometimes want more speed in their portable.

At home however some of them plug the machine into an external monitor, giving them way more screen real estate than the 15” MacBook Pro.

 

[Falhófnir]

I will answer not for him but for others I know.

The 15” is a non-starter for many because of the (lack of) portability but they sometimes want more speed in their portable.

At home however some of them plug the machine into an external monitor, giving them way more screen real estate than the 15” MacBook Pro.

But, more power for doing what? Video editing is GPU intensive more than anything, gaming can be CPU intensive, but when it is it’s almost always also GPU intensive too. The sort of modelling that is really CPU intensive I can’t see being done on an ultrabook anyway?

 

[Poki]

But, more power for doing what? Video editing is GPU intensive more than anything, gaming can be CPU intensive, but when it is it’s almost always also GPU intensive too. The sort of modelling that is really CPU intensive I can’t see being done on an ultrabook anyway?

I‘m a graphic designer, so I do need tons of CPU power for huge InDesign and Photoshop documents. While these programs can benefit from a faster GPU, the benefits are either limited to certain actions in the RGB color space (Photoshop) or a better preview quality (InDesign). A faster CPU however speeds up everything you do in these programs, and makes working on .indb files with hundreds of pages or big .psb composites possible.

Photo editing using Capture One is another area where the CPU trumps the GPU. While Phase One claims that they do indeed use the GPU for faster preview rendering, in my experience that feature hardly makes a difference, while a faster CPU directly affects the speed of the software.

And that‘s not even touching on workflows which can‘t use the GPU at all, like working on huge databases or web developing.

 

[EugW]

But, more power for doing what? Video editing is GPU intensive more than anything, gaming can be CPU intensive, but when it is it’s almost always also GPU intensive too. The sort of modelling that is really CPU intensive I can’t see being done on an ultrabook anyway?

Actually for video editors the encodes for example can be significantly shortened with quad core. Furthermore due to Turbo Boost you’re not losing much for poorly threaded applications by going quad core.

So if you can wait a few months I don’t know why you’d rush to get a dual core machine when a quad is right around the corner.

 

[Falhófnir]

I‘m a graphic designer, so I do need tons of CPU power for huge InDesign and Photoshop documents. While these programs can benefit from a faster GPU, the benefits are either limited to certain actions in the RGB color space (Photoshop) or a better preview quality (InDesign). A faster CPU however speeds up everything you do in these programs, and makes working on .indb files with hundreds of pages or big .psb composites possible.

Photo editing using Capture One is another area where the CPU trumps the GPU. While Phase One claims that they do indeed use the GPU for faster preview rendering, in my experience that feature hardly makes a difference, while a faster CPU directly affects the speed of the software.

And that‘s not even touching on workflows which can‘t use the GPU at all, like working on huge databases or web developing.

Would you really be using an ultrabook for huge databases or professional web development though? I’d say for that you’d want a portable workstation (at least) - so what’s wrong with a 15”? It’s really quite portable, the current machine is faster than the quad 13” will be, and a hexacore version seems pretty likely. I’m not sure UHD is going to cut it for intensive work.

Actually for video editors the encodes for example can be significantly shortened with quad core. Furthermore due to Turbo Boost you’re not losing much for poorly threaded applications by going quad core.

So if you can wait a few months I don’t know why you’d rush to get a dual core machine when a quad is right around the corner.

My point was that it’s something that’s going to be bottlenecked more by lower integrated graphics than dual core vs quad core, the original point was why a quad chip with UHD graphics would be better than a dual with iris. As far as I can tell, either everything is also dependent on GPU performance, or its so demanding that using a U series chip is inappropriate in the first place... therefore a quad core MacBook with only UHD graphics would be a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. I get some people might want a quad core 13”, but they’d also probably need it to have higher end integrated graphics too (at the least).

 

[EugW]

Would you really be using an ultrabook for huge databases or professional web development though? I’d say for that you’d want a portable workstation (at least) - so what’s wrong with a 15”? It’s really quite portable, the current machine is faster than the quad 13” will be, and a hexacore version seems pretty likely. I’m not sure UHD is going to cut it for intensive work.


My point was that it’s something that’s going to be bottlenecked more by lower integrated graphics than dual core vs quad core, the original point was why a quad chip with UHD graphics would be better than a dual with iris. As far as I can tell, either everything is also dependent on GPU performance, or its so demanding that using a U series chip is inappropriate in the first place... therefore a quad core MacBook with only UHD graphics would be a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. I get some people might want a quad core 13”, but they’d also probably need it to have higher end integrated graphics too (at the least).

I suspect Apple will release it with Iris Pro. It’s just that it’s hard to guess what form since the spec leaks haven’t been as plentiful as we’d like.
[doublepost=1520356457][/doublepost]BTW, maybe it’s just my circle of friends and family, but actually all the multimedia content creators I know either use a 13” Pro (with or without an external monitor) or else use an iMac 27”.

All the 15” Pro owners I know just use it for MS Office and other business applications.

 

[gobikerider]

Actually for video editors the encodes for example can be significantly shortened with quad core. Furthermore due to Turbo Boost you’re not losing much for poorly threaded applications by going quad core.

So if you can wait a few months I don’t know why you’d rush to get a dual core machine when a quad is right around the corner.

Not only that but general longevity of the machine is going to be extended. Eventually I’d bet money MacOS will have the minimum systems be the 2018 models seeing the 13” will be qaud core and 15” will be hex core

 

[Poki]

Would you really be using an ultrabook for huge databases or professional web development though? I’d say for that you’d want a portable workstation (at least) - so what’s wrong with a 15”? It’s really quite portable, the current machine is faster than the quad 13” will be, and a hexacore version seems pretty likely. I’m not sure UHD is going to cut it for intensive work.

Like I already said, there's tons of software in use which doesn't make any use of the GPU at all. Photoshop can't even accelerate anything when working in a CMYK color space, which is what most professional graphic designers would do. So the value of the GPU is very dependent on the actual usage, and there are tons of workflows which don't require a fast GPU at all. In our agency, we do max out our iMacs when it comes to CPU / RAM / SSD, but we get the cheapest GPU possible since it doesn't make any perceivable difference in our workflow (we do use networked render farms for 3D render work though).

So if we take the tiny gains due to the faster GPU out of the equation, a 13" with a quad-core 8th gen i5 CPU would be very close to the current 15" model - same RAM and SSD speed and very similar single- and multi-core CPU speeds (maybe even a little faster if we talk about the 28W chips). That's a very nice amount of power to do lots of work on the go.

Would the next 15" MBP be even faster? Of course. But I just don't like a 15" notebook to use on the go. It feels unnecessarily huge on the lap, doesn't fit any table in a train or plane, and sometimes even takes an uncomfortably big amount of space on a meeting table. Not to forget that the almost 0.5 kg additional weight are certainly a bad thing when carrying it together with other stuff in a messenger style bag, sometimes for the whole day. And quad-core in the 13" model means that I'm finally able to actually work on a notebook which isn't oversized for my taste.

 

[snortpig]

I‘m curious to know what you’ll be doing that can leverage a quad core chip, but isn’t demanding enough to warrant a 15”?

Compiling code, running VMs, all of the things that software developers do. I prefer the form factor of the 13" for weight/portability when carrying it around, and I prefer to have something small and easily carried with one hand when it's sitting on my lap. Faster charging too, I would imagine, as the battery is smaller but the power adapter is the same wattage.

 

[TheralSadurns]

Haha. And here I ask for the glorious return of a 17" MBP or PowerBook

 

[EugW]

I suspect Apple will release it with Iris Pro. It’s just that it’s hard to guess what form since the spec leaks haven’t been as plentiful as we’d like.

There is this dodgy spec rumour though:

Core i7-8559U Coffee Lake (14 nm) quad-core with base clock of 2.7 GHz and Iris Plus video. This would likely be a 28 Watt chip though, not 15 W for the 13" models.