Waiting for the 2018 MBP

[Dave245]

They've had spring events, but if the MBPs are just spec bumps or slight revisions (hey, there's a physical escape key but the touch bars still there, etc.) I doubt they'd give it an event even bundled with other Mac or Watch, etc. news.

It also depends on when Intel ships processors. Coffee Lake is slow to come out.

They did last year at WWDC, the MacBook Pro got a slight update with processors and it was mentioned in the keynote.

 

[fuchsdh]

They did last year at WWDC, the MacBook Pro got a slight update with processors and it was mentioned in the keynote.

Yeah, but that's WWDC (an always-there venue for software and hardware announcements). My point is that it's unlikely to get its own event.

 

[ugru]

P.S. There is a reason why everyone and their grandma is using LPDDR3 today in their premium laptops (Microsoft, Dell etc.)

True, but everyone else (except maybe microsoft) has also other laptop lines with different purposes with more powerful internals, more ram, better GPU and so on. Instead, Apple offering remains limited.

This is a point that has been debated ad infinitum and some of you seem ok with it but i am not. Moreover, the fact that Apple has always done this do not mean that they will always have such a limited offer. The Mac Pro 2013 fiasco, which determined the u-turn in their desktop line, the release of the iMac Pro and the complete redesign of the Mac Pro could also mean a change in the laptop line...one can only hope!

 

[leman]

True, but everyone else (except maybe microsoft) has also other laptop lines with different purposes with more powerful internals, more ram, better GPU and so on. Instead, Apple offering remains limited.

Sure, but they always were limited A point can be made that its not satisfactory anymore since the computational needs have changed. Another point can be made that the modern fast GPUs have reached a stage where they are not practical in a mobile machine (if the machine is still to be called mobile).

Moreover, the fact that Apple has always done this do not mean that they will always have such a limited offer. The Mac Pro 2013 fiasco, which determined the u-turn in their desktop line, the release of the iMac Pro and the complete redesign of the Mac Pro could also mean a change in the laptop line...one can only hope!

Maybe you are right and Apple will be interested in making a desktop replacement workstation. I am rather sceptical about it though. Laptops are much more difficult to balance than desktops and they will always be a compromise, no matter what you do. Apple's design sop far seems to be: mobile machines for mobile use, and if your performance requirements are not satisfied by a mobile platform, then you really need a proper desktop machine.

But you also very rightly mention that this is a discussion along the lines of "woul'd have, could have". I don't think that neither of us can predict what Apple will do. They have access to the market data. If they feel that their position is threatened by the likes of Razer Blade or Surface Book (which makes a very curios trade of GPU for CPU), they could offer appropriate machines.

BTW, in this context, the new Intel/AMD hybrids sound super interesting, since they can balance the power between CPU and GPU on demand. So if your application mainly stresses the CPU, it can get all the available power, putting it at a desktop performance level. If you application mainly stresses the GPU, the CPU can tuned down. In such a system, you'd get a truly flexible design that doesn't need to sacrifice the CPU for GPU performance and via versa. I really hope that Apple goes for this.

 

[ugru]

Another point can be made that the modern fast GPUs have reached a stage where they are not practical in a mobile machine (if the machine is still to be called mobile).

Mmmm...on the contrary, now we are in an age that in a sufficently compact envelope (less than 3/4 kg) you can have a nearly 8 TFLOPS GPU....A laptop with these GPGPU performances could easily act as a desktop replacement and i am talking about Pascal, which is not the latest nVidia offering. We will see what will be the answer of the greens to AMD Vega...

Of course a laptop is a compromise, but apple could (should IMHO) have also a line of powerful laptops, even at the expense of thinnes and battery life...

 

[adamjackson]

Coming up on the need to buy a new MacBook Pro. If we receive a bump in March / June, what is expected? I would like a new CPU and a bit better GPU. 32GB of RAM would be nice but I'm fairly content with 16. Have 32 in my iMac and don't feel I utilize it completely.

I'm wondering if I should wait until June or just buy a MBP now.

 

[cool11]

Apple's design sop far seems to be: mobile machines for mobile use, and if your performance requirements are not satisfied by a mobile platform, then you really need a proper desktop machine.

So, if I am really a power user, and I need lot of power 'on the go' or 'on the move',
doesn't Apple targets to this category of users,
like it is supposed to be with macbook pro?

I can't understand, why mobile computing should be (significantly?) weaker than the desktop counterparts,
especially when we are in 2018.

 

[PickUrPoison]

So, if I am really a power user, and I need lot of power 'on the go' or 'on the move',
doesn't Apple targets to this category of users,
like it is supposed to be with macbook pro?

I can't understand, why mobile computing should be (significantly?) weaker than the desktop counterparts,
especially when we are in 2018.

2018 still has high end GPUs drawing 180W+ and desktop CPUs at 90-140W.

The number of users who want that in a mobile form factor are small. It would be loud, heavy, thick and have a relatively short run time. That’s not the MacBook Pro.

 

[leman]

So, if I am really a power user, and I need lot of power 'on the go' or 'on the move',
doesn't Apple targets to this category of users,
like it is supposed to be with macbook pro?

I can't understand, why mobile computing should be (significantly?) weaker than the desktop counterparts,
especially when we are in 2018.

Well, you do get a lot of power. In the end, its all about balance and about the definition of what is still "mobile". Sure, you can put 150W components in a portable chassis, but that will cost you a lot in terms of other design parameters. Apple has traditionally designed their high-end mobile computers at around 90-100W TDP max. I guess that is some sort of magical number that Apple is comfortable with in a mobile platform. So within this constraints you get fastest CPUs money can buy currently (there are very few other laptops shipping with high-end i7 Kaby Lakes, and I don't think that among those there is a laptop that can match the Apple's portability) as well as a "reasonable" 2TFLOPS of GPU performance.

As to desktop vs. mobile, doesn't it all boil down to size constraints? Desktops can afford to host power-hungry components, while a mobile platform doesn't. The difference in performance between mobile and desktop is as small as ever, but in terms of power delivery and heat dissipation desktop is simply superior. And yes, you can build a portable platform using desktop parts (Clevo does for example), but that is a very specialised market and not something Apple ever showed interest in.

P.S. Maybe it would make sense to distinguish between "portable" and "mobile" in this context. Portable as in "can be moved and set up on a new place with ease" and mobile as in "can be comfortably used on the go". The MacBook Pro is in the later category — its plenty fast, but not so fast that it would become a physical burden. The 15" MBP for example fits in a compact bag designed for 13" laptops while being significantly faster than the majority of other 15" laptops on the market and offering top-in-class battery life.

 

[ackmondual]

Yeah, but where are these notebooks that are 1/3 the cost of a MacBook Pro? I doubt they have even remotely comparable specs.

Another MR user mentioned he could get a desktop equivalent of Windows for half of a Mac equivalent, and that's after you factor in having to rebuy all the software for Windows. It was in the "Alternatives to Mac" section here on MR (sorry, but I often do NOT save these links for reference).

 

[leman]

Another MR user mentioned he could get a desktop equivalent of Windows for half of a Mac equivalent, and that's after you factor in having to rebuy all the software for Windows. It was in the "Alternatives to Mac" section here on MR (sorry, but I often do NOT save these links for reference).

That is rather unlikely. A decent 4K monitor (reasonable equivalent for 21.5" iMac) will cost at least $500, the 4K iMac CPU (i5-7400) is $190, so just these two components together already put you close to $700 or over 50% of the iMac's price. Put the components together, and you'll easily reach the $1300 price tag of the iMac. So I don't know what the said user did, but they probably took some sort of corner case and then made some budget options.

 

[haydn!]

That is rather unlikely. A decent 4K monitor (reasonable equivalent for 21.5" iMac) will cost at least $500, the 4K iMac CPU (i5-7400) is $190, so just these two components together already put you close to $700 or over 50% of the iMac's price. Put the components together, and you'll easily reach the $1300 price tag of the iMac. So I don't know what the said user did, but they probably took some sort of corner case and then made some budget options.

Nope. What they did was exaggerate the pricing difference between equal Windows and Mac machines. Then passed this off as fact fooling some others to believe it to be true, despite lack of any credible sources. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[travod]

My MacBook Air turns five in June, which is about the average time I take to replace a laptop...

I just got my first job out of college and I'm feeling irresponsible so I'm back in the market for an upgrade.

Oh, the joys of Apple product shopping. So much waiting and guessing for the right time to buy.

 

[fuchsdh]

That is rather unlikely. A decent 4K monitor (reasonable equivalent for 21.5" iMac) will cost at least $500, the 4K iMac CPU (i5-7400) is $190, so just these two components together already put you close to $700 or over 50% of the iMac's price. Put the components together, and you'll easily reach the $1300 price tag of the iMac. So I don't know what the said user did, but they probably took some sort of corner case and then made some budget options.

I've yet to see a Mac vs. PC comparison that actually shows the mythical Apple Tax on current hardware. The machines aren't outrageously more expensive, and even the BTO upgrades are priced akin to what other PC vendors charge (when comparing the prices on the iMac Pro I found that HP for instance charges more than Apple for RAM upgrades.) That's not exactly a comfort if Apple isn't making a machine you're interested in (a mobile workstation) or if you don't need certain features (if you don't care about a 5K screen or PCIe storage, then the added expense of that doesn't make sense for you) but in general if you're not talking about building and maintaining your own DIY machine, the costs are mostly equivalent (extenuating factors being software or lack of updates.)

As to pleasing that market, a return of the 17 inch would make more sense than trying to make the 13 and 15in models something they're not. A retina 17" model could still be substantially smaller and lighter than its predecessor while still being large enough to fit another PCIe SSD, hotter graphics, more battery, or additional ports.

 

[ls1dreams]

Though Apple's SSD upgrade prices, while still pretty high, are more reasonable than they've ever been.

For 1tb, +$800 from 128, or +$600 from 256 is reasonable? There's around $300 of markup there when you account for the baseline drive being part of the price.

 

[Poki]

For 1tb, +$800 from 128, or +$600 from 256 is reasonable? There's around $300 of markup there when you account for the baseline drive being part of the price.

If you compare it to something even remotely comparable, like the Samsung 960 PRO (which still is slower than the SSDs in the MacBook Pros), then yes, the markup is reasonable. Apple charges €500, while Samsung charges €340 (€669 for the 1 TB SSD minus €329 for the 512 GB one).

Flash storage is very expensive right now, and the kind of top speed storage Apple uses is even more so. They obviously still charge more than they might have to, but considering how much they charged for SSD upgrades some years back, then yes, it's definitely more reasonable that it ever has been.

 

[richinaus]

That is rather unlikely. A decent 4K monitor (reasonable equivalent for 21.5"

I've yet to see a Mac vs. PC comparison that actually shows the mythical Apple Tax on current hardware. The machines aren't outrageously more expensive, and even the BTO upgrades are priced akin to what other PC vendors charge (when comparing the prices on the iMac Pro I found that HP for instance charges more than Apple for RAM upgrades.) That's not exactly a comfort if Apple isn't making a machine you're interested in (a mobile workstation) or if you don't need certain features (if you don't care about a 5K screen or PCIe storage, then the added expense of that doesn't make sense for you) but in general if you're not talking about building and maintaining your own DIY machine, the costs are mostly equivalent (extenuating factors being software or lack of updates.)

As to pleasing that market, a return of the 17 inch would make more sense than trying to make the 13 and 15in models something they're not. A retina 17" model could still be substantially smaller and lighter than its predecessor while still being large enough to fit another PCIe SSD, hotter graphics, more battery, or additional ports.

I totally agree. Did a lot of pricing comparisons to the iMac pro and it stands shoulder to shoulder. The Apple tax is a myth really, at the lower end it is more expensive but at the upper it is pretty fair in price from what I can see.

I am not sure how popular a 17” would be but in desktop replacement terms it could certainly be used as one and is something I would have a look at when purchasing my next laptop. My only issue is that I find 15” fine for nearly all tasks then prefer to jump to 27” and would find the 17” sitting in no mans land. As ever though, everyone has heir own requirements .

 

[cool11]

Well, you do get a lot of power. In the end, its all about balance and about the definition of what is still "mobile". Sure, you can put 150W components in a portable chassis, but that will cost you a lot in terms of other design parameters. Apple has traditionally designed their high-end mobile computers at around 90-100W TDP max. I guess that is some sort of magical number that Apple is comfortable with in a mobile platform. So within this constraints you get fastest CPUs money can buy currently (there are very few other laptops shipping with high-end i7 Kaby Lakes, and I don't think that among those there is a laptop that can match the Apple's portability) as well as a "reasonable" 2TFLOPS of GPU performance.

As to desktop vs. mobile, doesn't it all boil down to size constraints? Desktops can afford to host power-hungry components, while a mobile platform doesn't. The difference in performance between mobile and desktop is as small as ever, but in terms of power delivery and heat dissipation desktop is simply superior. And yes, you can build a portable platform using desktop parts (Clevo does for example), but that is a very specialised market and not something Apple ever showed interest in.

P.S. Maybe it would make sense to distinguish between "portable" and "mobile" in this context. Portable as in "can be moved and set up on a new place with ease" and mobile as in "can be comfortably used on the go". The MacBook Pro is in the later category — its plenty fast, but not so fast that it would become a physical burden. The 15" MBP for example fits in a compact bag designed for 13" laptops while being significantly faster than the majority of other 15" laptops on the market and offering top-in-class battery life.

2018 still has high end GPUs drawing 180W+ and desktop CPUs at 90-140W.

The number of users who want that in a mobile form factor are small. It would be loud, heavy, thick and have a relatively short run time. That’s not the MacBook Pro.

Can someone tell me, even in an approximate way,
how a high end mbp stands against an equivalent desktop (i)mac?
In terms of an overall performance, just a simple comparison in percentage, as everything change every now and then, but I want just to have a clue.
Maybe some experienced users or specialized professionals have dealt with this topic.

 

[Poki]

Can someone tell me, even in an approximate way,
how a high end mbp stands against an equivalent desktop (i)mac?
In terms of an overall performance, just a simple comparison in percentage, as everything change every now and then, but I want just to have a clue.
Maybe some experienced users or specialized professionals have dealt with this topic.

It's always a good idea to look at benchmarks when you want to compare the performance of different computers. Simply put, comparing a high-end non-pro 5k iMac with a high-end 15" MBP, the iMac will have the option to use up to 64 GB RAM, the CPU is up to 50% faster, the GPU is approximately three times as fast, but SSD speeds should be comparable.

 

[Gata]

2018 still has high end GPUs drawing 180W+ and desktop CPUs at 90-140W.

The number of users who want that in a mobile form factor are small. It would be loud, heavy, thick and have a relatively short run time. That’s not the MacBook Pro.

I don't think asking for something like a 1060 in performance means we need a 2-inch-thick laptop with a 240 watt power brick.

Razer was able to deliver a GPU with a 1060 with pretty solid battery life, in a form factor similar to a macbook pro, to boot.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that Apple takes their own polished approach to a form factor that we know can house meaningfully more powerful hardware without compromising on thinness/lightness/battery life.

 

[richinaus]

I don't think asking for something like a 1060 in performance means we need a 2-inch-thick laptop with a 240 watt power brick.

Razer was able to deliver a GPU with a 1060 with pretty solid battery life, in a form factor similar to a macbook pro, to boot.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that Apple takes their own polished approach to a form factor that we know can house meaningfully more powerful hardware without compromising on thinness/lightness/battery life.

You won’t get the same level of cpu and a powerful GPU but I still believe the 15” surface book 2 is the best notebook in terms of realistic specifications as it gives a more balanced performance. The only thing letting it down is lack of tb3.

 

[ugru]

P.S. Maybe it would make sense to distinguish between "portable" and "mobile" in this context. Portable as in "can be moved and set up on a new place with ease" and mobile as in "can be comfortably used on the go". The MacBook Pro is in the later category — its plenty fast, but not so fast that it would become a physical burden. The 15" MBP for example fits in a compact bag designed for 13" laptops while being significantly faster than the majority of other 15" laptops on the market and offering top-in-class battery life.

First of all we need a definition of what "can be comfortably used on the go". That is the main issue here.
To me, a 15" / 3 cm thick / 3/4 kg weight and 6/7+ hrs of battery life is perfectly usable on the go.
That would mean a 15" MBP with the best CPU avaliable and a 5/6 TFLOPS class GPU...

Those needing more mobility or more battery life can have the 13" MBP or the 12" MB.

 

[Poki]

First of all we need a definition of what "can be comfortably used on the go". That is the main issue here.
To me, a 15" / 3 cm thick / 3/4 kg weight and 6/7+ hrs of battery life is perfectly usable on the go.
That would mean a 15" MBP with the best CPU avaliable and a 5/6 TFLOPS class GPU...

Those needing more mobility or more battery life can have the 13" MBP or the 12" MB.

And Apple clearly thinks that most people would prefer a decently powerful notebook that weighs less than 2 kg over a workstation class one. And keeping sales numbers of Windows workstation notebooks in mind, I'm pretty sure they're right.

So what we're talking about is not that Apple should make the MacBook Pro thicker and heavier to make it even more powerful, but that they should create a separate, workstation class notebook. I'd think that the market for such a product isn't nearly big enough for Apple to make this investment. But then again, they sell an iMac Pro, which also sits kinda awkwardly between all the other workstations, so it's certainly possible.

As far as I'm concerned, my old 2.5 kg 15" MBP is too heavy for taking it with me in my camera shoulder bag for a full day, so I won't buy anything even remotely as heavy again.

 

[leman]

First of all we need a definition of what "can be comfortably used on the go". That is the main issue here.
To me, a 15" / 3 cm thick / 3/4 kg weight and 6/7+ hrs of battery life is perfectly usable on the go.
That would mean a 15" MBP with the best CPU avaliable and a 5/6 TFLOPS class GPU...

Those needing more mobility or more battery life can have the 13" MBP or the 12" MB.

And what of those who'd like to have best CPUs but can live with a 2-3 TFLOPS GPU, but don't really want to carry extra luggage around? Thats where it gets complicated. I totally agree with you though that Apple could introduce an additional tier of MBP to accommodate the needs of users like you. Well, I guess we will know soon enough. An MacBook "Pro Pro" portable with mobile Xeon CPUs and high-end graphics could be a thing. I wouldn't buy one, since it doesn't do much for me, but it could be a beneficial thing for the Mac. If they go this route though, I sincerely hope that they don't water down the current 15", its perfect for my needs as it is.

 

[ugru]

And what of those who'd like to have best CPUs but can live with a 2-3 TFLOPS GPU, but don't really want to carry extra luggage around?

The old base 15" (without dGPU) form factor can stay as it is, the Intel + AMD thing would be perfect, with a 99.5 battery it would have 15 hrs of playtime...and they can make a thicker and more powerful MBP for me...