Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Since Intel has announced the new chips that more than likely be in the 2018 MacBook Pro, what would be the graphics cards that Apple would go with? For the 15" I believe the 2016 to 2017 AMD upgrades where minor. While the number changed, the actual spec bump was small.

Does AMD have something that is a bigger upgrade Apple would go with for the 15"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
This is just to remind myself of the potential CPUs for the 2018 MacBook Pro, since this is all getting rather confusing to me:

Screen Shot 2018-04-04 at 8.13.09 PM.png


Screen Shot 2018-04-04 at 8.14.24 PM.png


I'm still wondering what the non-Touch Bar MacBook Pros are going to get.
 
Do you think it’s a possibility, ?Apple goes back to ‘no touchbar’ option?

I bought the Touch Bar model for everything despite the Touch Bar, I don't dislike it at all, but I wouldn't intentionally pay money for it. I'd love to see them make only the Touch Bar model as it is, but then take it off for a price reduction, and then stop making the Non-Touch Bar as we know it today. This may come at a trade off for that extra battery capacity though.
 
Since Intel has announced the new chips that more than likely be in the 2018 MacBook Pro, what would be the graphics cards that Apple would go with? <snip>

Does AMD have something that is a bigger upgrade Apple would go with for the 15"?

AMD announced back in January that they will release a mobile version of Vega this year, but they have yet to confirm specs or timing. I think it would be a fairly good bet that Apple would try to include it in at least this year's 15" MBP refresh.

Speculation (based on the size of the chip shown by AMD) is that it should approximate GTX 1060 performance, although Apple might need to down-clock it to fit within the thermal constraints imposed by the MBP shell and the new Intel hex-core processors. Nevertheless, it should still provide a decent performance increase over the 2017 AMD MBP GPU.

There isn't much more info available, but some more specifics on what I outlined above are available here:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-RX-Vega-Mobile-GPU.278686.0.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
When we look at the contexts where people ask for more RAM, its always the same. Its either people running multiple virtual machines (where memory access patterns are more complicated and paging can incur very complex costs), working with large datasets (often using suboptimal algorithms — but hardware is cheaper than programmer's time), or running large suites that require a lot of data or infrastructure to be loaded simultaneously (pro audio apps come to mind).

On this forum, there's a tendency to push people towards more RAM. It's an interesting question how much casual users need and how it has changed over time. If I remember correctly, in 1999 my iBook came with 32MB of memory. Pretty quickly, I felt it wasn't enough. I switched to Windows for a few years, then got a MB in 2011 and was surprised that it still came standard with 2GB. I maxed it out at 4GB, which ran beautifully through El Capitan. But with Sierra things took a slight turn for the worse. Maybe it was the 4GB of RAM no longer being enough to run it smoothly or just the software update not really being that compatible with a mid-2010 MB, having HD instead of SSD, or some other issue. The main problem on Sierra was an annoying lag every now and then when typing, both on the web and using Pages. I don't remember if High Sierra fixed it. Other than that, however, 4GB still ran it pretty well. I was still using it last week.

Based on my experience with 4GB, I would say, for a casual user who doesn't open more than a few tabs at a time, doesn't game, and doesn't multitask (other than, say, having Safari and Pages open at the same time), I think 8GB should be enough. When making recommendations on this forum, I think there is a tendency to assume that somebody buying a MBP is going to use it for heavy editing or some other intense work. But I suspect a lot of casual users will reject the MacBook as too small, the Air as not having a good enough screen, and choose an entry-level MBP.

Edit: Went back and checked this morning and actually the iBook had a choice of 32 or 64MB, and I had the 32MB version. I have edited my entry to reflect that. I remember I had trouble using Quicktime player, perhaps for that very reason.
 
Last edited:
On this forum, there's a tendency to push people towards more RAM. It's an interesting question how much casual users need and how it has changed over time. If I remember correctly, in 1999 my iBook came with 2GB of memory. Pretty quickly, I felt it wasn't enough. I switched to Windows for a few years, then got a MB in 2011 and was surprised that it still came standard with 2GB. I maxed it out at 4GB, which ran beautifully through El Capitan. But with Sierra things took a slight turn for the worse. Maybe it was the 4GB of RAM no longer being enough to run it smoothly or just the software update not really being that compatible with a mid-2010 MB, having HD instead of SSD, or some other issue. The main problem on Sierra was an annoying lag every now and then when typing, both on the web and using Pages. I don't remember if High Sierra fixed it. Other than that, however, 4GB still ran it pretty well. I was still using it last week.

Based on my experience with 4GB, I would say, for a casual user who doesn't open more than a few tabs at a time, doesn't game, and doesn't multitask (other than, say, having Safari and Pages open at the same time), I think 8GB should be enough. When making recommendations on this forum, I think there is a tendency to assume that somebody buying a MBP is going to use it for heavy editing or some other intense work. But I suspect a lot of casual users will reject the MacBook as too small, the Air as not having a good enough screen, and choose an entry-level MBP.
i definitely had problems with 4gb on sierra even with an ssd. this was on a MBA. I wasn't running any heavy duty applications but I did have a lot of office applications open at once and by the time sierra came around, i started getting random hang ups and beach balls
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
On this forum, there's a tendency to push people towards more RAM. It's an interesting question how much casual users need and how it has changed over time. If I remember correctly, in 1999 my iBook came with 2GB of memory. Pretty quickly, I felt it wasn't enough. I switched to Windows for a few years, then got a MB in 2011 and was surprised that it still came standard with 2GB.
iBooks can’t even run 2 GB RAM. In 1999 they came with 32-64 MB. You could unofficially add up to another 512 MB for a max total of 576 MB.

The last iBook maxed out at 1.5 GB, but that was in 2005.

i definitely had problems with 4gb on sierra even with an ssd. this was on a MBA. I wasn't running any heavy duty applications but I did have a lot of office applications open at once and by the time sierra came around, i started getting random hang ups and beach balls
High Sierra will run acceptably for light usage with 4 GB but my recommended starting point is 8 GB.

I went with 16 GB for my Core m3 MacBook though, because for longevity, usually RAM is the most important, with CPU speed coming in a distant second.
 
Based on my experience with 4GB, I would say, for a casual user who doesn't open more than a few tabs at a time, doesn't game, and doesn't multitask (other than, say, having Safari and Pages open at the same time), I think 8GB should be enough. When making recommendations on this forum, I think there is a tendency to assume that somebody buying a MBP is going to use it for heavy editing or some other intense work. But I suspect a lot of casual users will reject the MacBook as too small, the Air as not having a good enough screen, and choose an entry-level MBP.

i definitely had problems with 4gb on sierra even with an ssd. this was on a MBA. I wasn't running any heavy duty applications but I did have a lot of office applications open at once and by the time sierra came around, i started getting random hang ups and beach balls

4GB is definitely not enough on a MBP, simply because of HiDPI media assets. Right now, the comfortable RAM amount is 8GB. Very few users (even pro users) will see any benefit from going from 8GB to 16GB and I suspect that this will hold for at least 2-3 more years... Especially on Mac, where all software is being slowly but surely moved to Swift — and Swift applications use less RAM by its design.
 
If you were to buy an upgraded MacBook Pro 13” TB... the shipping date is 20/24th April...

Almost a whole month... New release is imminent...

I also checked the Austrian and German Apple Online store, which show 6 to 8 days in the former, and 23rd to 26th April in the latter. The nTB 13" and the 15" CTO MBPs do show similar shipping dates.

While of course this is by no means a guarantee that a new release is imminent, this is the longest wait I've seen on the 2017 CTO MBPs since their release, and since it affects all models, it might well be a hint on things to come.
 
4GB is definitely not enough on a MBP, simply because of HiDPI media assets. Right now, the comfortable RAM amount is 8GB. Very few users (even pro users) will see any benefit from going from 8GB to 16GB and I suspect that this will hold for at least 2-3 more years... Especially on Mac, where all software is being slowly but surely moved to Swift — and Swift applications use less RAM by its design.


This is me... NOT running anything in particular. Just the regular background apps... like iTunes, Mail, Safair, Chrome, etc.
Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 07.46.38.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ener Ji
This is me... NOT running anything in particular. Just the regular background apps... like iTunes, Mail, Safair, Chrome, etc.
View attachment 757033

And what are we supposed to conclude from this? The more RAM you have, the more of it will get used by caches and opportunistic data preloading. I am rather sure that you won't see an memory pressure issues if you had 8GB either.
 
Got tired of seeing the same arguments about RAM over and over again in this thread, so now whenever I see posts about RAM, I start singing a slightly modified version of Monty Python's Spam Song in my head.

RAM, RAM, RAM, RAM!
RAM, RAM, RAM, RAM!
Lovely RAM! Wonderful RAM!
 
I hope they toss the TouchBar. Or at least allow the same ability to spec up for nTB and TB. It’s literally a consumer gimmick bar that shouldn’t be on a Pro computer. TouchID is fine, sure but developers and power users need the function and utility rows back. I need my ESC key for VIM... If they took the 2013-2015 keyboard layout and just switched to butterfly switches it would be perfect. Oh Jony I don’t know how you got away with this one...
 
Yeah that would be my suggestion, not sure if it'd still work, but the economies of scale would apply to the majority of parts instead of the current model, so having just the touch bar piece and not that piece (maybe leaving the co-processor in both models) would give the consumer exactly what they want...

Apple is the company that is arrogant enough to TELL us what we want though, and you know what? It basically works, so I don't reckon the Touch Bar is going anywhere. I think you can have the Function Keys stay up? But yeah with VMs if the touch esc key is gone, then mmm. I notice it shows up sooner on startup than any other key though.
 
I still think using the 15W quad-core 8th generation CPUs with the UHD 620 would be a great choice for Apple – differentiating it further from the more expensive model by its GPU power while not making it noticeably slower for most casual users this model is aimed at.
 
Hopefully four ports this time around! Although I'm not holding my breath for it.
That would undermine the sales of the TB model. For the same reason they'll never make the TB optional in the higher-specced models - it would be embarrassing if it turned-out that it was only selling well because people weren't given the choice.

But maybe we could hope that they'll space the two ports out enough so that you can use them both at the same time with anything wider than a cable? Quite why a company that prides itself on design always crams general-purpose ports so close together that all but the smallest peripherals interfere with each other I don't get - I guess they just mean "design" as in "looks" rather than "usability"? But they've been doing this for the last decade with the MBPs (my current one is OK because the USBs are on opposite sides, but even then some flash drives don't easily fit in the right-hand socket if the HDMI is in use).
 
That would undermine the sales of the TB model. For the same reason they'll never make the TB optional in the higher-specced models - it would be embarrassing if it turned-out that it was only selling well because people weren't given the choice.

But maybe we could hope that they'll space the two ports out enough so that you can use them both at the same time with anything wider than a cable? Quite why a company that prides itself on design always crams general-purpose ports so close together that all but the smallest peripherals interfere with each other I don't get - I guess they just mean "design" as in "looks" rather than "usability"? But they've been doing this for the last decade with the MBPs (my current one is OK because the USBs are on opposite sides, but even then some flash drives don't easily fit in the right-hand socket if the HDMI is in use).
One on each side would be nice - so you could still benefit from being able to plug power in on whichever side is convenient... that's one of the positives of leaving magsafe behind and you don't even get it unless you go for the higher end option. Alternatively they could leave the two on one side and add a third on the other - even the air has two USB A and one TB2 ports so this is a downgrade even if you ignore that one port has to be used for power and there's no SD slot.

Personally I think we will see the end of the nTB model though, it could well have been a stopgap because the real replacement for the air (13" MacBook) wasn't ready in time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Fritter
One on each side would be nice - so you could still benefit from being able to plug power in on whichever side is convenient... that's one of the positives of leaving magsafe behind and you don't even get it unless you go for the higher end option. Alternatively they could leave the two on one side and add a third on the other - even the air has two USB A and one TB2 ports so this is a downgrade even if you ignore that one port has to be used for power and there's no SD slot.

Personally I think we will see the end of the nTB model though, it could well have been a stopgap because the real replacement for the air (13" MacBook) wasn't ready in time?

Putting one port on each side would require a logic board redesign - or at least a pretty long cable - since there's only one TB3 controller chip in the nTB MBP, instead of one on each side in the TB model. I highly doubt this would happen. I also doubt they would bring additional ports to the cheaper model. In my opinion, the nTB model either stays like it is, or gets discontinued in favor of a cheaper 12"/13" MacBook, maybe coupled with a cheaper starting price for the TB model.
 
When I bought my 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display back in 2013 I selected the top option for everything without knowing why, I just wanted the best one.

That was only a 2.8GHz i7 with 8GB RAM and a 1TB SSD. It runs as good today as it did back then. That maxed out price was just £1,732.50

I'm looking to get the 2018 version when it is delivered, but the current 13-inch Macbook Pro with Retina display is £2,799.00 with the top option selected for everything (with TB) just 5 years later. The RAM has doubled and the processor is quicker, but it comes with a 1TB SSD also.

Do we think this trend can continue with mac prices? Surely mobile components should get cheaper over time, not more expensive...?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.