I don't know how much work it would take to support non-lower power RAM, but the power difference is so negligible, I don't see why they couldn't support regular DDR4 laptop RAM + Vega GPU and be well below the wattage limits on the 15" MacBook Pro.
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 the 2018 MBP
- Thread starter benface
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just don't want to see Intel models left out in the cold for OS updates after too short a period. Imagine investing in a high end MBP or any model of iMP or MP only to be told 2-3 years from now that your hardware won't be getting that that year's macOS update.
There were Macs sold in 2005-2006 that got nothing past 2007's Leopard and that's not right at all.
There were Macs sold in 2005-2006 that got nothing past 2007's Leopard and that's not right at all.
the last line in the laptops...and its logical..first will be the Macbook ,after that, mac mini or something low end mac desktop, after that macbook pro and imacs...but still hard to believe...i hope Apple is working on an architecture that is backwards compatible with BOTH x86 and arm..if this is even possible with today technologies and money
Found this article on intels chips. It’s a bit beyond on me. Don’t know if it’s useful
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2018/04/ev...bout-intels-newest-8th-generation-processors/
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2018/04/ev...bout-intels-newest-8th-generation-processors/
So we will have
13" base configs with i5 8259U and i5 8269U quad core and an i7 8559U optional config
15" base configs with i7 8750H and i7 8850H and an xeon/i9 optional config
So we have all the needs...WWDC here we come
I think it really depends on how backwards-compatible the new architecture and how smooth the transition will be. Many people seem to assume that Windows via Boot Camp or virtual machines aswell as every software not adapted to the new hardware will simply not run on the new architecture, but this is something that we fundamentally don't know right now.
Apple had Rosetta for several years after the Intel-switch in order to run PowerPC-software on Intel's architecture and they have made a lot of experience since over the last decade in terms of custom chips and operating systems. If we are able to run software made for Intel's architecture with little-to-no disadvantages on the new architecture in the first ≥5 years, then I see no reason why Apple should stay on Intel longer than necessary on something like the MacBook Pro.
I'll say this, I don't really know what the heck a 6 core chip is for if you can't pair it with >16GB of RAM. I know this LPDDR4 thing is on Intel, but the whole situation seems awkward.
Apple is certainly working with Microsoft on that and likely have signed NDA's to keep it a secret since its in their best interest to do so.
Apple will make it even more seamless by 2020 where you download and install Windows 20-09 from the App Store optimized for A series and have it setup in a pinch.
Also, remember, the state of computing will be a bit different in 2020. More web apps, streamed apps in addition to native apps from third party devs. This years release of macOS 10.14 is the beginning of the that app transition. Microsoft has changed how Office is developed where its platform independent and makes it easy for them to target newer platform. The hard work is already out of the way already since iPad has Office and who knows, by 2020, it will even more mature.
Honestly though. What is the extent that a 6-core processor can utilize it’s own power if it is limited by 16gigs of ram?
I remember reading somewhere in this thread about the waste of cores due to a low ram limit. Anyone care to elaborate on the technicalities?
16gb ram is more then enough memory to feed the proccesor.
More Cores or More RAM?
I just read this article and I still don’t have the answer that I was looking for.
The author mentioned that,
I just read this article and I still don’t have the answer that I was looking for.
The author mentioned that,
It boils down to what you want for yourself. Do you prefer your apps to run speedily and smoothly? Then go for more cores. Or do you want to run so many apps simultaneously without freeze? Then you need plenty plenty of RAM.
He is correct, obviously.. but I was looking for an answer that describes performance with like.. a sliding-scale between # of cores vs amount of ram (or ram per core ratio). I am in the group of people that only needs 16GB of ram to feel comfortable with my purchase, but from a standpoint of curiosity.. I can’t help but wonder.
Last edited:
That depends heavily on what you are doing. It seems to me though, having ~4 GB RAM per core is a fairly standard minimum. 16/6 is now 2.6 GB/core. I think ideally, if Apple did things like other OEMs, we'd see some sort of Pro+ model or something, that was thicker in order to allowing for better cooling of this CPU, thereby allowing it to sustain those super high clock rates, to allow for 4 DIMMs DDR4, and to allow for a bigger battery. And by thicker, I would guess it would be somewhere between the old 2008-2012 models and the 2013-2015 models. Its not like it would be some humungous thing.
Such a sliding scale doesn’t make much sense. It depends entirely on the type of workload. Some workloads need little memory but linearly increase in speeds with core numbers. There are scenarios for example where the speed of an 18-core machine would be the exactly the same with 8 GB vs 32 GB.
OTOH, other applications don’t actually need that much CPU speed but benefit greatly from gobs of memory. For example, you might want to run multiple VMs simultaneously but only need to access them one at a time with low impact applications.
Just got a 13" MBP with 121 GB storage and Fn keys. Two things I'd like to see improved in the 2018 version:
1. A quieter keyboard. I like typing on it. Feels crisp, light, more exact. But the keys are a little loud when you hit them, no?
2. Reader still has the same problem it did in my old MB, which is that sometimes it doesn't show the whole page or article. But that's more of a software issue.
3. The rubber legs on the bottom don't hold the MBP in place. Maybe some people like that because it makes it easy to adjust the notebook's position, but I'm used to my mid-2010 white MB, which had a rubber pad on the bottom that kept it securely in place. The way the new one slides around looks a little dangerous, especially considering no Magsafe.
Which brings me to my question: Will Magsafe be compatible with USBC?
1. A quieter keyboard. I like typing on it. Feels crisp, light, more exact. But the keys are a little loud when you hit them, no?
2. Reader still has the same problem it did in my old MB, which is that sometimes it doesn't show the whole page or article. But that's more of a software issue.
3. The rubber legs on the bottom don't hold the MBP in place. Maybe some people like that because it makes it easy to adjust the notebook's position, but I'm used to my mid-2010 white MB, which had a rubber pad on the bottom that kept it securely in place. The way the new one slides around looks a little dangerous, especially considering no Magsafe.
Which brings me to my question: Will Magsafe be compatible with USBC?
Last edited:
Nope. Magsafe relied on being able to disconnect quickly when the cable was jerked in any direction. By virtue of the shape of the port, USB-C doesn't have that liberty.
Like you said, it does say up to 64GB max, depending on type. Details would normally be available in the datasheet. However, the link Intel provides is broken and leads to the 8th generation S-series processors and quad core U-series, not these new H-series.
Until the datasheet is available, we won’t know if 32 GB of LPDDR3 are supported. It’s possible the cpu supports 4x8GB of LPDDR3, or 2x16GB but I haven’t seen any availability of 16GB LPDDR3 DIMMs yet.
Ugh. Can’t they just hurry up and give us what we want/need? Whether it be Intel or Apple; I always feel like I am waiting on one of them to make a move.
I’m severely impatient and I don’t think I can deal with this waiting game much longer.
[doublepost=1522776603][/doublepost]I’m bout go crazy
[doublepost=1522776638][/doublepost]
ME TOOOOOO I need the MBP now. Really hoping there's a chance in April/May, and since the Windows laptops are all already giving the specs we want + SHIPPING, maybe Apple can hurry up.
The Windows laptops coming out this month with Core i9 and 32 GB are running DDR4. Not LPDDR4 (which isn't even supported AFAIK), not LPDDR3, but DDR4.
So you can be pretty sure that a MacBook Pro won't be getting 32 GB in 2018.
What I was saying is that AFAIK, none of the pending laptop releases that advertise more than 16 GB with these chips are using LPDDR3. That's a pretty strong hint there.
according to 9to5mac article
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2018/04/03/2018-macbook-pro-intel-i9-possibility/amp/
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2018/04/03/2018-macbook-pro-intel-i9-possibility/amp/
I'd take that with a grain of salt.
Intel's previous mobile chips also supported 32 GB of RAM. You can buy laptops right now with 32 GB of RAM. But the key point is none of them are running LPDDR3.
Do any of them ship with 64GB? Intel says 64GB is supported.
Anyway, despite 9to5mac’s claim, we still don’t know that it’s true. It could very well be that they blew it, and 32/64GB is only when using DDR4. Or 9to5mac scooped everyone, and got it right that 32GB of LPDDR3 is now a supported configuration.
Last edited:
In the article it says „mobile RAM“ , lets just hope maybe Intel surprises us!