Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Waiting for the 2018 MBP

PeterJP said:
There's always a compromise. The current 15" retina screens have 2880x1800. That corresponds to 1440x900. But earlier 15" non-retina MBPs had 1680x1050. So Apple could make a 3360x2100 screen. That's still around 85% of a full 4K resolution, as compared to 63% now. Full 4K would make the system elements (title bar etc) too small to use anyway, when used in a 2x retina mode on a 15".
Click to expand...
Coming from a 17" MBP and still using it... I disagree. Nothing (to me) beats the workspace of a 1920x1200 canvas. At Retina @2x resolution even more so.
My only problem is... I tried the scaling option with the rMBPs and the new TBMBPs... it's pretty bad. Generally text and stuff still looks sharp enough. But once you start working with any design app and have to draw lines or similar... the scaling is killing it. Lines start to flicker as points no longer correspond to pixels.

Edit:
Supporting what I said with a longer explanation and a nice little animation:
https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
Just give us a real keyboard... The touchpad style butterfly keyboard will just never cut it for me. I'm forced to use the new Macbook pro at work and after over 200 hours using the keyboard, I am still far from being as fast and precise on it than on the older keyboard that has more depth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
TheralSadurns said:
Coming from a 17" MBP and still using it... I disagree. Nothing (to me) beats the workspace of a 1920x1200 canvas. At Retina @2x resolution even more so.
My only problem is... I tried the scaling option with the rMBPs and the new TBMBPs... it's pretty bad. Generally text and stuff still looks sharp enough. But once you start working with any design app and have to draw lines or similar... the scaling is killing it. Lines start to flicker as points no longer correspond to pixels.
Click to expand...

That sounds fair enough. I was actually thinking of a 15" size in the reply you quoted. For that size, 4K hardly brings any benefit. On the contrary: battery life goes down dramatically because the dGPU needs to be used all the time. The only exception is if you're doing 4K video, but you might want to get a bigger screen then anyway.

I fully agree on the extra workspace of a 17" screen. In the poll about a new 17" MBP, I voted yes. I'm working on a 13" rMBP at the moment and it's just too small for serious work. Thinking of a new 17" rMBP, it would get 3840x2400 resolution. If anyone can pull this off without too much of a hit on the battery, it should be Apple. Looking back, Apple bumped battery capacity around 15-25% when adding retina screens to keep the battery life comparable to the previous generation. For a 17" one, a comparable battery capacity bump would mean a 110-120Wh battery. That's one huge battery to lug around. If you the Intel+AMD MCM is power efficient enough, it would be feasible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
PeterJP said:
That sounds fair enough. I was actually thinking of a 15" size in the reply you quoted. For that size, 4K hardly brings any benefit. On the contrary: battery life goes down dramatically because the dGPU needs to be used all the time. The only exception is if you're doing 4K video, but you might want to get a bigger screen then anyway.

I fully agree on the extra workspace of a 17" screen. In the poll about a new 17" MBP, I voted yes. I'm working on a 13" rMBP at the moment and it's just too small for serious work. Thinking of a new 17" rMBP, it would get 3840x2400 resolution. If anyone can pull this off without too much of a hit on the battery, it should be Apple. Looking back, Apple bumped battery capacity around 15-25% when adding retina screens to keep the battery life comparable to the previous generation. For a 17" one, a comparable battery capacity bump would mean a 110-120Wh battery. That's one huge battery to lug around. If you the Intel+AMD MCM is power efficient enough, it would be feasible.
Click to expand...


I actually think that resolution still works fairly well on a 15" machine. Granted things DO get a little small, but it's available as one of Apple's default scaling options for a reason. But I can see this being a fringe case...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
PeterJP said:
For a 17" one, a comparable battery capacity bump would mean a 110-120Wh battery. That's one huge battery to lug around. If you the Intel+AMD MCM is power efficient enough, it would be feasible.
Click to expand...

110-120Wh battery would be above the regulated IATA battery limit of 100. That's why the old 15" MBP had 99Wh batteries. If the battery is too big you'll not pass inspection at the airport, they'll not let you board the plane due to the perceived fire/explosion hazard.

The space inside the chassis is also pretty limited. AAPL would need to either use terraced batteries, which they initially intended to, but decided not to jsut before launch of the new models (2016). Or to use newer, more efficient parts. Or newer battery tech, which as we know from the Note 7 firecracker edition is not safe
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
gobikerider said:
Here you are : https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Intel-Announces-New-CPUs-Integrating-AMD-Radeon-Graphics

and another with some extra results: http://www.techradar.com/news/leake...-graphics-are-exciting-news-for-laptop-gamers
Click to expand...
I have to say this does not look good. The G chips will only have 4 cores. These chips are kaby lake, not coffee lake, which makes me believe these chips will not be released at all, since they are already one generation behind. Its also a generation old graphics technology, these amd GPUs are polaris, and not vega. Yes it might be the fastest APU, but I don't want it.
I said I got mad when Intel abandoned the GT4e Chips, this is not a solution for my problem, this is a replacement for a dGPU, which is a step in the wrong direction. I don't want old and worse tech to replace my wishes for Vega and coffee lake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
Meldalinn said:
I have to say this does not look good. The G chips will only have 4 cores. These chips are kaby lake, not coffee lake, which makes me believe these chips will not be released at all, since they are already one generation behind. Its also a generation old graphics technology, these amd GPUs are polaris, and not vega. Yes it might be the fastest APU, but I don't want it.
I said I got mad when Intel abandoned the GT4e Chips, this is not a solution for my problem, this is a replacement for a dGPU, which is a step in the wrong direction. I don't want old and worse tech to replace my wishes for Vega and coffee lake.
Click to expand...

The fact that these leaked chips are quad-core doesn't mean the final product will ship with only four cores. There's nothing wrong with Kaby Lake Refresh, in fact it is expected that all 45W CPUs will use that architecture. If they can bump it to six cores while keeping the GPU performance this high and the TDP of the whole package at 45W (which it might not be, if the GPU part of it has a separate power connection to the logic board), this would be mighty impressive.

Just to put the GPU performance in perspective: The Radeon Pro 560 in the current MBP offers around 1.9 TFLOPs, while this one is supposed to offer 3.3 TFLOPs of raw computing performance.

Having said that, I'm still waiting for any news on potential GPU solutions for the 13" MBP, and this draws too much power for that notebook. Any news or leaks about Intel's 8th gen GT3e iGPUs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel and gobikerider
Poki said:
The fact that these leaked chips are quad-core doesn't mean the final product will ship with only four cores. There's nothing wrong with Kaby Lake Refresh, in fact it is expected that all 45W CPUs will use that architecture. If they can bump it to six cores while keeping the GPU performance this high and the TDP of the whole package at 45W (which it might not be, if the GPU part of it has a separate power connection to the logic board), this would be mighty impressive.

Just to put the GPU performance in perspective: The Radeon Pro 560 in the current MBP offers around 1.9 TFLOPs, while this one is supposed to offer 3.3 TFLOPs of raw computing performance.

Having said that, I'm still waiting for any news on potential GPU solutions for the 13" MBP, and this draws too much power for that notebook. Any news or leaks about Intel's 8th gen GT3e iGPUs?
Click to expand...
After spending a couple of hours reading about this, I don't want it, and I really don't think its going to find its way into the 2018 MBP. + you served it as a solution to my GT4e problem, which its not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gobikerider
Meldalinn said:
After spending a couple of hours reading about this, I don't want it, and I really don't think its going to find its way into the 2018 MBP. + you served it as a solution to my GT4e problem, which its not.
Click to expand...

We do not know this yet. The way Intel presented it, it is a combination of a dedicated GPU and a CPU by using a system similar to AMDs Infinity Fabric. However, we do not know for a fact what the TDP of the whole package will be. If it is 45W, the same as previous H-series CPUs, it doesn't matter that it's using a dedicated GPU, does it? The power consumption and heat generation would be similar to a CPU using an iGPU. And i doubt Intel would be able to deliver an iGPU with this amount of power. If, however, it is using more power (which is more likely), it's obviously not an alternative to an iGPU. However, we simply do not know the details yet, so it's very hard to tell if this is a good solution for any given product or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel and gobikerider
All i can personally wish for, is that Apple has listened to the complains regarding screen uniformity. Also march release would be nice... And an OLED screen... (Probably wont happen without huge modifications to MacOS...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel and andrewj44
ThisBougieLife said:
Yeah if they make one with OLED and FaceID I'd get it in a heartbeat. But don't see that happening...
Click to expand...
FaceID i don't see its necessary, it's not really justified in laptop cause there is plenty of room for fingerprint-sensor.

But OLED would be absolutely brilliant. TBH if Apple introduced OLED in the top of the line 15" and 13" MBP's, i don't even care if they bump up the price. I would buy it ASAP. Although it could be closer to 4000€/$ for that screen, but it will be hugely forward-thinking...

But in order to do that, Apple would have to make changes to the OS. Something like Lenovo did with the X1 Carbon (Task Bar dimmer etc.) to reduce burn in.

(Please Apple release OLED panel MBP in march)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
Ma2k5 said:
In my view you won't see any new MacBooks (excluding spec bumps) before Q4 2018 (if not 2019). Things like FaceID to be implemented will take time, as would improvements to the keyboard, touch bar, port availability (?) and battery life.
Click to expand...
This thread is about waiting for a spec bump though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gobikerider
You MUST do what you want but
i would stay away from any MB. They are very expensive, unreliable and under perform.

oled technology has been around for ~15 years.
I just dont see the issue, either it dosnt work as expected or it should be implemented asap.
 
jeyf said:
You MUST do what you want but
i would stay away from any MB. They are very expensive, unreliable and under perform.

oled technology has been around for ~15 years.
I just dont see the issue, either it dosnt work as expected or it should be implemented asap.
Click to expand...

And the burn-in is about as bad as you'd expect with an operating system and software displaying some elements constantly for hours and hours each and every day you use it. The current displays in the MBPs are great, so why go through this hassle? I bet if they went this route this forum would be full of "I just want the old design with the old display back" posts ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel, xdragon, c0ppo and 1 other person
Poki said:
And the burn-in is about as bad as you'd expect with an operating system and software displaying some elements constantly for hours and hours each and every day you use it. The current displays in the MBPs are great, so why go through this hassle? I bet if they went this route this forum would be full of "I just want the old design with the old display back" posts ...
Click to expand...

Yes burn-in is an issue currently, but its inevitable that OLED is the future.

I agree that IPS-panel is more color-accurate , and it would be fine if Apple continues to use IPS-technology. But then Apple should focus more QC-resources to the screen's itself.

Because from personal experience, in the 16/17 lineup of MBP's the screen uniformity issue is real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel and gobikerider
HerbertDerb said:
Yes burn-in is an issue currently, but its inevitable that OLED is the future.

I agree that IPS-panel is more color-accurate , and it would be fine if Apple continues to use IPS-technology. But then Apple should focus more QC-resources to the screen's itself.

Because from personal experience, in the 16/17 lineup of MBP's the screen uniformity issue is real.
Click to expand...
actually... OLED will NOT be the future... but most likely MicroLED
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel and IcyTexx
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back