Clearly we all have a lot to talk about in this thread! 
I’m glad I got the MBP 13. I use it everyday and it’s been great!
I’m glad I got the MBP 13. I use it everyday and it’s been great!
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
A lot of people who responded to me seem to think 7nm Vega + Coffee Lake is unrealistic. That's surprising to me, because I thought that would already represent a fairly underwhelming upgrade. Navi has been pushed back, and Ice Lake is eternally far off. Coffee Lake is just Kaby with 2 more cores that will be underclocked if running (it's not like efficiency is improving by leaps and bounds here). I am shocked to find that the 2017 MBP is not already running Vega... apparently it's a pretty underwhelming system. nVidia's Pascal parts that were widely available at that time remain competitive with AMD's Vega offerings today; Vega 7nm is the only part that has a chance of beating nVidia on power/performance (the relevant spec for laptops) and I do not think it can win that contest by a wide margin.
Two cores are two cores and Apple can strongarm AMD into making a graphics part at their preferred power/performance ratio with HBM 2 if they really want (I'm not sure that they do). Anyone who expects this to be a big upgrade in terms of performance... is more accustomed to the new low bar Intel has set in the past few years than I am
I guess I need to be part of the "waiting for 2019" thread. Ice Lake + Navi / *insert Pascal successor here* will be the real jump in performance. Not only will those chips be on vastly improved manufacturing processes, they'll have better memory options too: 32GB LPDDR4 and *insert next generation graphics memory here.*
See you in the last quarter of 2019... assuming Ice Lake isn't pushed back again... which is a pretty big assumption...
Two cores are two cores and Apple can strongarm AMD into making a graphics part at their preferred power/performance ratio with HBM 2 if they really want (I'm not sure that they do). Anyone who expects this to be a big upgrade in terms of performance... is more accustomed to the new low bar Intel has set in the past few years than I am
I guess I need to be part of the "waiting for 2019" thread. Ice Lake + Navi / *insert Pascal successor here* will be the real jump in performance. Not only will those chips be on vastly improved manufacturing processes, they'll have better memory options too: 32GB LPDDR4 and *insert next generation graphics memory here.*
See you in the last quarter of 2019... assuming Ice Lake isn't pushed back again... which is a pretty big assumption...
Well, let me clarify a few things here.
First of all, the 2017 MBP was released about a year before Vega Mobile became available (which is now, or maybe even not just quite yet) so it's not very surprising that the 2017 models don't have Vega.
And then about Vega in the 2018 models -- I absolutely and firmly believe that they will put Vega in them. But you qualified it with saying *7nm* Vega. The way AMD has talked about it so far is that the first 7nm Vega parts will be datacenter parts. You know, high performance parts that require about 6x the power of an entire MacBook. They're not going to put datacenter parts in a laptop. Even these parts are not available yet, and probably won't be until the end of the year. AMD have not talked about any 7nm mobile parts at all to my knowledge, though who knows?
I think Vega Mobile in any form should be quite enough to be fairly exciting. I expect them to do much better as mobile parts than they do as desktop parts. I can't say exactly what that might mean for performance/watt, but I would say it's fair to be quite hopeful for those parts to be quite a performance boost for the MBP.
You should also know that there are no 7nm GPU parts available anywhere as of right now. I believe Apple has a GPU on 10 nm, but they don't make laptop parts as of yet. Nvidia don't have any, and none of the rumours for next gen have put them on 7nm as far as I know. Could still happen, but they are generally a bit late to new nodes if you know your history. So your expectations are a bit out of sync with where the tech world is at the moment. Wait a year and you should be spot on.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is easily the best review of the 2017 MBP I've ever read:
https://veekaybee.github.io/2018/07/02/macbook-pro-review/
https://veekaybee.github.io/2018/07/02/macbook-pro-review/
I mostly just thought AMD was a little farther along than they are. Setting aside the manufacturing node, nVidia's current architecture (Pascal) has a substantial power/performance advantage over AMD's Vega. Vega will still provide a notable performance upgrade over the Radeon solution currently used in the MBP, especially if Apple uses a high-end graphics memory solution (which Vega can do). But it's still surprising--and disappointing--to see that Apple will be using a graphics part which will provide inferior performance to parts that they could have been using since last year.
I do have confidence in GF's 7nm node. It certainly makes sense that Vega 7nm+ could be limited to big partners like datacenters as AMD moves directly into Navi for 2019. All the more reason to wait for 2019, since Navi at 7nm and Turion at 14nm+++++ will probably clean house on the chips available right now.
This was hilarious
Last edited:
Did you tell him the i5 iMacs are plenty fast for DTP and don’t get nearly as hot as the i7s? Or that he can get an ODD for like $20?
[doublepost=1530564516][/doublepost]
Lol wut? What a weird fantasy. The Forestall fanfic forum is over there --->
Last edited:
Like I said. I didn't talk details with him and HIS account of an overheating iMac I believe to be a single case of bad luck. This hasn't been widespread like at all.
The point of the missing ODD was more like, why remove it from an iMac to make it thinner. Sure. MBP makes sense. But a desktop machine?! Why would that have to slim down?!
EMOJI BAR
And we're supposed to pay what, $400 more dollars for so we can tap image of an emoji? That machine is laughable.
Because most people don't need an ODD in their desktop machine either, regardless of thickness. At that point it's just an added expense and dead weight for most people. It was time to go, hence why their entire lineup started dropping the ODD around 6 years ago. It's dead simple to add a dirt cheap one off Amazon if you're one of the outliers who still does anything at all with physical media (I sure as hell don't, and I work in video) so why anyone complains about it I do not understand.
[doublepost=1530577855][/doublepost]
It does more than that, you know. Or do you?
Well in games maybe. But even the existing versions of the integrated Vega (Vega M GH) are far superior in pro 3D apps (solid works, NX, etc). They even beat a GTX 1080Ti…….games are a whole different story though.I mostly just thought AMD was a little farther along than they are. Setting aside the manufacturing node, nVidia's current architecture (Pascal) has a substantial power/performance advantage over AMD's Vega. Vega will still provide a notable performance upgrade over the Radeon solution currently used in the MBP, especially if Apple uses a high-end graphics memory solution (which Vega can do). But it's still surprising--and disappointing--to see that Apple will be using a graphics part which will provide inferior performance to parts that they could have been using since last year.
I do have confidence in GF's 7nm node. It certainly makes sense that Vega 7nm+ could be limited to big partners like datacenters as AMD moves directly into Navi for 2019. All the more reason to wait for 2019, since Navi at 7nm and Turion at 14nm+++++ will probably clean house on the chips available right now.
This was hilarious
Kaby G is relying on Intel manufacturing, so that's actually a very unique space. Intel's fabs and the integrated solution no doubt solve a lot of the issues Vega brings to the table in terms of heat. EDIT: just looked this thing up and it actually has a TDP of 65W--no way it could fit in the 13" Macbook Pro, but something similar could definitely end up in the 15", especially if Intel and AMD are willing to glue Vega M GH to a six core Coffee part.
What I'm thinking about is a dedicated part for the 15". The bottleneck AMD is going to hit is with dedicated mobile parts is heat. Performance / watt has been much better with Pascal parts than Vega parts. On desktops, that's ok. AMD's parts just run hotter--but they have to run hotter to remain competitive with nVidia in terms of performance / dollar. In notebooks, you lose that flexibility. You can shore it up a bit by shelling out for HBM 2 (a very expensive solution) but even then I just do not see how it is possible for Vega to outperform Pascal on the same node with the same TDP. The solution here may just be to not use a dedicated part... we may be finally witnessing the death of discrete graphics on mobile.
Last edited:
Saw this video today – not about MBP, but it seems that Apple is replacing the keyboard with exact same part on MB. Not suprised, but quite disappointed.
Last edited:
At the announcement, AMD said Vega Mobile would come with 4G HBM2. Vega can't really do any other memory type, which is both a bit of a blessing and a curse.
[doublepost=1530607478][/doublepost]
Kaby G is actually based on Polaris, even though it's named Vega. It's quite unlikely to end up in any MBP, even though at first glance it might seem like a good fit.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the desktop parts for both Polaris and Vega are effectively overclocked in order to achieve enough performance. For mobile parts, they are always clocked lower, and as I understand they also become quite a bit more power efficient then. I wouldn't be overly concerned about the power consumption of Vega Mobile until we see real life tests. It's also weird with Vega, they have the horsepower for compute, they just don't seem to be able to get all of it out in games. And since this is more in the realm of MBP, I think they will perform a fair bit better than one might expect by just looking at gaming benchmarks for desktop parts.
EMOJI BAR
Jokes aside, this is probably the only functional use I would ever get out of a touch bar.
Conversely my first thought when I saw that was "please tell me this can be disabled"
In all seriousness, I would put a strip of insulating tape over it rather than ever have to look at that.
Not for nothing, but when my kids saw the Touch Bar they fell in love with it. Now I still don't own a 2016 or 2017 MBP but they would love to get their hands on one. I think for some people its a nice feature, but for the majority, no so much
I'm looking for some advice. I currently use a 13" but thinking about going to 15" this time around. Has anyone done the move in either direction and is there anything I should consider before making a decision? I have the following pros and cons, but at this point I'm still undecided. Is there anything else I should consider?
Pros
- A dGPU (I do some lite gaming)
- Possible to configure a higher spec overall
Cons
- Not as portable, it's a big ass laptop (I'm used to 13" and smaller)
- Not so easy to use travelling via trains and planes
What am I missing here?
[doublepost=1530612685][/doublepost]
I think it becomes a lot more useful with tools such as BetterTouchTool.
Pros
- A dGPU (I do some lite gaming)
- Possible to configure a higher spec overall
Cons
- Not as portable, it's a big ass laptop (I'm used to 13" and smaller)
- Not so easy to use travelling via trains and planes
What am I missing here?
[doublepost=1530612685][/doublepost]
I think it becomes a lot more useful with tools such as BetterTouchTool.
Possibly, but my criticism (albeit from a non-user), is that you need to take your eyes off the screen to interact with it, where as other actions w/o the TB can be done with still watching the screen. Its more efficient imo to hit a key-combination as you work, instead of stopping, looking, pressing the TB for the desired affect. YMMV and many people do love the TB and BetterTouchTool I'm sure can help
I would like to have a cooler mbp than my mbp 15' late'13,
but with their obsession to make it thinner and thinner at all cost,
I think that I am losing my hope.
but with their obsession to make it thinner and thinner at all cost,
I think that I am losing my hope.
I'd say you've probably covered it there.
I have made the switch in the other direction, and am pondering whether to go back to 15". But for me the only reason is the larger screen size: I'd prefer not to have the dGPU, as that's just more power consumption and one more thing to go wrong. The current 15" is smaller than my old one, but would still be a pain on a plane.
Honestly? I'd go to the Apple Store and check it out in person. YMMV and everyone is different... but I'm lugging around a 17"MBP. To me the 15" even more so the CURRENT 15" w/ Touchbar seems diminutive. Weight and size-wise it's basically the same as a unibody (2008-2012) 13" MBP.
Also personal experience... you'll appreciate the larger canvas you can work with, i.e. fitting more stuff on the screen.
I was much in the same boat in 2011. Buy a 17" or a 15" MBP. Everyone was telling me I should go with the smaller size. In the end I did NOT regret it EVER. Had I in fact bought the smaller one... I'd have upgraded it LONG ago.
Same thing with the iPhone. Go 4.7" or 5.5"?! Never regreted going big there either. So... like I said, YMMV. But for me? It's go big or go home... and it was always the right decision to go for the bigger one.
I have the 13" tbMBP and the only reason I wish I had the 15" is for performance. The 13" is fine for my work but there are plenty of occasions where I know a more powerful 15" would be better. 90% of the time I wouldn't notice the difference and 5% of that 10% where I would I would only be saving a few seconds or the animations would be a bit smoother.
only if the dGPU is engaged, otherwise the TB MacBook pros 15” are notorious for having quite anemic HD 630 integrated graphics and can stutter quite badly in complex system animations.
If you do some light gaming, I'd say the dGPU benefits you quite a lot. Even the unremarkable 560 should go a long way. For myself, it's this and the screen size. If I were to end up with the 13" I'll probably accept that I won't be able to use it for games.
One consideration is also that the GPU comes with its own RAM, whereas on the 13" it's shared with the system RAM. I'm not sure how much this matters in practice, but maybe someone else knows.