Waiting for the 2018 MBP

[zmon]

To me the interesting thing is that after years of minor cpu performance boosts, intel are upping the CPU core count only after AMD are suddenly back in the game throwing out threadripper processors and the like with huge core counts. But seemingly, suddenly its fairly easy enough for intel to up core count now also. Could they have done this long ago? Could it be that the lack of competition for many years had them resting on their laurels and putting out processors with 5% performance boosts over the previous years - simply because they didn't have to do any more than that to shift new product ?

Of course. It's Intel being Intel. Why innovate when there's no competition from their only x86 competitor? We'll probably be stuck on 4 core/8 thread U CPUs for a while now as that's what AMD is doing with their mobile Ryzen 5 and 7 parts. Intel is only now doing 6 core parts in their mainstream CPUs, which was a response to Ryzen, and supposedly this year Coffee Lake-R/Ice Lake-S will be 8 core mainstream parts to compete with AMD. I'll feel a bit jaded since I just put together an 8700k build, but eh, what are you going to do?

Everything between K8 and Zen was such a misstep from AMD. There's a reason they were really only offered on OEM's low-end products. Core count didn't really matter when comparing against Intel's offerings at the time as AMD's 6/8 core products were getting destroyed in both single and multi-threaded tasks. Zen is obviously different, and a welcome alternative to Intel now. It'll be nice to see what Zen 2 brings to the table.

 

[Falhófnir]

Arguably software still isn’t really optimised beyond four cores now. Though that is also on Intel (devs seeing vast majority of CPUs being quad core for 7 years would make them reluctant to invest beyond that, or look for alternate means of perf gains like GPU acceleration instead.)

Also weren’t the mobile 500 series already just a rebranding of 400s with minor clock increases? I don’t now how I feel about another round of that instead of getting Vega...

As I understand it there is a limit to parallelisation that means more cores won’t necessarily be beneficial beyond a certain point, even if programmes are designed to take advantage of more cores. I guess there’s not a hard limit though as smartphones have climbed to octa-core setups.

 

[sputnikBA]

As I understand it there is a limit to parallelisation that means more cores won’t necessarily be beneficial beyond a certain point, even if programmes are designed to take advantage of more cores. I guess there’s not a hard limit though as smartphones have climbed to octa-core setups.

Multithreading is hard yes, and the benefits are dependant on exact task, yes (see benchmarks for iMac Pros vs top spec regular iMac for example). But more effort would have been put into finding solutions that could be run in parallel if we hadn’t have spent the better part of a decade with 4 cores seen as peak performance (with dual core also taking up much of midrange).

Like you say, smartphones have been hitting up to 8-cores, while people in this very thread are hoping to finally see the 13” MacBook Pro move off of dual cores.

 

[OreoCookie123]

Hey everyone, I really need some help here...

So, I have looking for a new MacBook Pro, as some of you may have seen, but I'm not having doubts about waiting for the 2018, I also wouldn't be buying a 2017 either...

I found a mint condition Early 2015, 2.9 Ghz, 16GB Ram and 256GB... Which seems great specs for what I need... I don't use anything that requires USB-C, and the 'legacy' ports would be great to still have...

But my issue is, is buying a laptop thats 3 years old worth it? Would it be slow and obsolete in a years time??

 

[RegularGuy09]

Hey everyone, I really need some help here...

So, I have looking for a new MacBook Pro, as some of you may have seen, but I'm not having doubts about waiting for the 2018, I also wouldn't be buying a 2017 either...

I found a mint condition Early 2015, 2.9 Ghz, 16GB Ram and 256GB... Which seems great specs for what I need... I don't use anything that requires USB-C, and the 'legacy' ports would be great to still have...

But my issue is, is buying a laptop thats 3 years old worth it? Would it be slow and obsolete in a years time??

Absolutely not. Those specs...they will last you for 3-5 years minimum, for light to medium usage.

What are you going to use the laptop for? The only thing the new MBPs have over the 2015 one is the faster CPU and GPU, and its not a HUGE difference. The 2015 model is superior in almost every other way(keyboard, ports, reliability etc).

 

[OreoCookie123]

Absolutely not. Those specs...they will last you for 3-5 years minimum, for light to medium usage.

What are you going to use the laptop for? The only thing the new MBPs have over the 2015 one is the faster CPU and GPU, and its not a HUGE difference. The 2015 model is superior in almost every other way(keyboard, ports, reliability etc).

General usage, but I am going to start dabbling in and out of photo editing and video editing, so of course the faster CPU/GPU would be better... And also to further future proof it...

I have the money to get 16GB of Ram in 2018, (Should the prices stay roughly the same as 2017), What I am interested in, is the Quad Core, does this mean we could get dedicated graphics in a 13"?

 

[snortpig]

General usage, but I am going to start dabbling in and out of photo editing and video editing, so of course the faster CPU/GPU would be better... And also to further future proof it...

General usage 2015 -> 2017 will be comparable, however if you are using the new video codecs supported by the 7th gen Intel CPUs in the 2017 then that might make a big difference when exporting videos to those codecs (VP9 I think).

 

[EugW]

General usage 2015 -> 2017 will be comparable, however if you are using the new video codecs supported by the 7th gen Intel CPUs in the 2017 then that might make a big difference when exporting videos to those codecs (VP9 I think).

More HEVC. macOS doesn't do VP9 acceleration (even though the 2017 hardware does).

 

[snortpig]

What I am interested in, is the Quad Core, does this mean we could get dedicated graphics in a 13"?

As much as this would be an insta-buy for me, I think the odds of dGPU in a 13" are pretty much nil.

Prove me wrong Apple!

 

[The Mercurian]

I'll feel a bit jaded since I just put together an 8700k build, but eh, what are you going to do?

Just built a threadripper 1920x myself

As I understand it there is a limit to parallelisation that means more cores won’t necessarily be beneficial beyond a certain point, even if programmes are designed to take advantage of more cores. I guess there’s not a hard limit though as smartphones have climbed to octa-core setups.

There is currently such a limit - but thats mostly down to how things have been programmed to date. I'm lurking ona forum for some stats software thats being redesigned to use multiple cores and its fascinated even if I don't understand everything. There are different ways to do multi-core, and its interesting to see it evolve - more than one way to skin a cat etc.

 

[TheHurryKayne]

As much as this would be an insta-buy for me, I think the odds of dGPU in a 13" are pretty much nil.

Prove me wrong Apple!

Just having a quad core in the 13 would be a miracle and infact in don't think will happen.eGpu is enough to me.

 

[Poki]

Just having a quad core in the 13 would be a miracle and infact in don't think will happen.eGpu is enough to me.

You don't think it will happen even though there are literally no dual-core 15W / 28W Core i5 or i7 8th gen Intel CPUs? What is Apple supposed to do? Use Celeron chips in their most expensive notebooks?

 

[arnaud.marchionni]

Hey guys!

I remember from last year that some guys in the US had a strategy to wait for the new MBP: they were getting a MBP somewhere before it was released to return it and buy the new one when it comes out.

Do you know what store would offer the longest return window?

 

[TheHurryKayne]

You don't think it will happen even though there are literally no dual-core 15W / 28W Core i5 or i7 8th gen Intel CPUs? What is Apple supposed to do? Use Celeron chips in their most expensive notebooks?

No.I don't think will happen.Too good for Apple.The only "pro" close to 13" and with quads for them is the iPad pro.I'd buy in a snap a real 13 quad.

 

[PickUrPoison]

No.I don't think will happen.Too good for Apple.The only "pro" close to 13" and with quads for them is the iPad pro.I'd buy in a snap a real 13 quad.

13” MBP will get the 28W quad core. Don’t be afraid of quad core, the new CPUs are the same TDP so there is no heat issue vs. the older dual core. So not too much for Apple to handle lol.

The 15” MBP will have hexa-core option at the high end, at the lower end the quad core will probably be the 65W G-series with the Radeon GPU on-package.

It seems like you are confusing iOS devices like iPad Pro with Mac OS devices like MacBook Pro. They are separate!! The rumor of Apple ditching Intel in a year or two is just a rumor, don’t be scared. Maybe Apple will ditch Intel for AMD, that is only a small possibility though, I think.

 

[fokmik]

Remember the 2015 about apples own chip into future macs...those rumors wew true, we got t1 chip into mbp and t2 chip into imac pro...

 

[PickUrPoison]

Remember the 2015 about apples own chip into future macs...those rumors wew true, we got t1 chip into mbp and t2 chip into imac pro...

Many expect FaceID in upcoming MBP (and iMac), not this year or next maybe, but soon. Could very well be the next major design change since the 2016 MBP, possibly in 2020.

FaceID would require at least an A11 processor, since it has the neural engine, the 600 billion operations per second dual core processor that provides the machine learning necessary for FaceID.

So it seems there will be not only T2 or T3 custom silicon, they will need a full SoC like the A11, actually maybe A12 or A13 by then, with FaceID 2 or 3. Apple’s silicon design group is killing it.

Don’t forget there was also a rumor within the last six months or so that Apple could be dumping TSMC in favor of Intel’s fab. I remember the article quite clearly.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

As much as this would be an insta-buy for me, I think the odds of dGPU in a 13" are pretty much nil.

Prove me wrong Apple!

I doubt this is happening because those i5 chips with the Vega APU are 65w... I do wish they did it.. I find the 15" way to big and the 13" is the perfect spot for a display in my view

 

[EugW]

I doubt this is happening because those i5 chips with the Vega APU are 65w... I do wish they did it.. I find the 15" way to big and the 13" is the perfect spot for a display in my view

65W for the GPU and CPU combined. The 15" already uses 45W chips for the CPU alone.

It's doable I suspect.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

65W for the GPU and CPU combined. The 15" already uses 45W chips for the CPU alone.

It's doable I suspect.

I believe so, but do you think they would cannibalize the 15" with dGPU? This again throws back the question regarding if they'll add the Touchbar to every Macb Pro this year.

 

[Poki]

I believe so, but do you think they would cannibalize the 15" with dGPU? This again throws back the question regarding if they'll add the Touchbar to every Macb Pro this year.

That model still would offer six cores as opposed to four with Kaby Lake G. Also, the Vega GL in the 65W Kaby G parts is fast, but not so fast that a new 35W Vega mobile couldn't outperform it by a fair amount.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

That model still would offer six cores as opposed to four with Kaby Lake G. Also, the Vega GL in the 65W Kaby G parts is fast, but not so fast that a new 35W Vega mobile couldn't outperform it by a fair amount.

I would really love to see a Vega APU for the 13"

 

[cube]

That model still would offer six cores as opposed to four with Kaby Lake G. Also, the Vega GL in the 65W Kaby G parts is fast, but not so fast that a new 35W Vega mobile couldn't outperform it by a fair amount.

Yes, especially because it is not a real Vega part (if not the hardware, at least as currently activated). It also has less features than true Vega.

But if Vega mobile does not use HBM2, it could be slower. But that may not be even be a possibility, so these parts may not come out this year because of HBM2 supply constraints.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

Yes, especially because it is not a real Vega part (if not the hardware, at least as currently activated). It also has less features than true Vega.

But if Vega mobile does not use HBM2, it could be slower. But that may not be even be a possibility, so these parts may not come out this year because of HBM2 supply constraints.

It's still an APU the one we talking about here regarding the 65w.

https://ark.intel.com/products/1304...RX-Vega-M-GL-graphics-6M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz

 

[PickUrPoison]

65W for the GPU and CPU combined. The 15" already uses 45W chips for the CPU alone.

It's doable I suspect.

If you’re talking about the 65W part going into the current 13” MBP, that’s not doable. The 13” can’t dissipate more than twice the thermal load for which it’s been designed.

If you’re talking about putting the 65W part in the 15”, sure no problem. The current CPU+GPU solution is in the 70-75W range.