Waiting for the 2019 MBP [Merged]

[koyoot]

False:
Report: Intel is cancelling its 10nm process. Intel: No, we’re not

Nope, its not false. Intel canned 10 nm Process. The ORIGINAL ONE.

"10 nm" process, which is mentioned here, is ported down 10 nm process(essentially 12 nm), which Intel calls 10 nm for PR and marketing reasons.

Different libraries, different performance patterns, lower density, bigger die sizes, higher thermal output, lower clock speeds. Essentially means that Intel will miss desity, power and performance targets with upcoming products. Yes, we will see new products from Intel, in upcoming months, years. But how good they will be remains the question. We will 100% see downgrade in clock speeds compared to 14 nm process, due to higher IPC of IceLake architecture, but inability to clock higher of the architecture, and the process itself, will not be able to mitigate this due to lower transistor performance, vs original 10 nm process.

P.S. I wonder why nobody mentions, that killing of 10 nm process(original one) would be decision made by ONLY new CEO?

Yep. It should be announced really soon.

 

[Falhófnir]

Nope, its not false. Intel canned 10 nm Process. The ORIGINAL ONE.

"10 nm" process, which is mentioned here, is ported down 10 nm process(essentially 12 nm), which Intel calls 10 nm for PR and marketing reasons.

Different libraries, different performance patterns, lower density, bigger die sizes, higher thermal output, lower clock speeds. Essentially means that Intel will miss desity, power and performance targets with upcoming products. Yes, we will see new products from Intel, in upcoming months, years. But how good they will be remains the question. We will 100% see downgrade in clock speeds compared to 14 nm process, due to higher IPC of IceLake architecture, but inability to clock higher of the architecture, and the process itself, will not be able to mitigate this due to lower transistor performance, vs original 10 nm process.

P.S. I wonder why nobody mentions, that killing of 10 nm process(original one) would be decision made by ONLY new CEO?

Yep. It should be announced really soon.

I remember Brian Krzanich saying the unusually high 2.7x transistor density increase over 14nm was what had stumbled them, if there's any truth to that (I think quite plausible?) then it would make sense they might just want to take 14nm and move it down to a smaller node size just to finally refloat themselves off of the 14nm rock they're grounded on.

 

[cool11]

What about Moore's law?

 

[maflynn]

What about Moore's law?

I think that's long since become a non-factor.

 

[pshufd]

What I'd like: 1.25 inches thick, 17 inch screen and call it the MacBook Game. They could start a new trend with the PC industry. Power and Bulk for great cooling.

 

[Ma2k5]

What I'd like: 1.25 inches thick, 17 inch screen and call it the MacBook Game. They could start a new trend with the PC industry. Power and Bulk for great cooling.

It's called desktops. Seriously, the market for the 17" market is so small. For most users, 15" is actually too big, let alone 17". Those who do need a bigger screen, find 17" not enough. Those who really do need the performance, will probably still find the 17" to be not enough.

For someone who really needs the power or screen size, external monitors and desktops are the preferred option.

 

[doitdada]

I think the 13" with four cores is just great, and would be nice to have as portable machine. Most PRO users, as many SD card and USB-A users call themselves, will have a PRO external monitor with legacy USB ports, charging capability and a 30 inches of screen real estate or more. I had a 30 inch as a student even though I had a 17 inch which I used in clamshell mode. In 2015-2016 there wasn't much USB-C/TB3 stuff out there, but that seems to be in order now. My Wifi is fast enough to work with tiffs and RAWs, I could also load my video scenes unto a TB3 drive and don't feel much of a hiccup.

eGPU seems to suck, so the price/performance ratio makes them irrelevant. You want PC Master race gaming benchmarks to post? Buy a desktop. I guess a quad core rMB will be released next week, and for 99,7% of all users, that will be OK, even with 8GB of RAM.

Please don't cry.

 

[R2FX]

It's called desktops. Seriously, the market for the 17" market is so small. For most users, 15" is actually too big, let alone 17". Those who do need a bigger screen, find 17" not enough. Those who really do need the performance, will probably still find the 17" to be not enough.

For someone who really needs the power or screen size, external monitors and desktops are the preferred option.

small? based on what research? you could argue that Mac Pro, iMac Pro also cater to rather small markets, yet those are still here...17" was canned as there were no retina LCD and powerful GPUs in 2012 when Retina made debut; we could have now 17" with Retina, decent GPU, 32GB of DDR4, non-throttling CPUs and if you want to game or do some heavy lifting with eGPU that can drive internal screen as well

17" laptop category is just another category Apple diligently ignores, with rest of other stuff (iPod touch, iPad mini, Mac mini, Apple displays, Airport routers and we instead get emojis, Watch bands, dumb speaker, Apple's view on politics etc)

I would buy one in a heartbeat, no matter the price. I have mid 2014 MBP and 2xMBP 17" (one 2006, second 2008). The 2008 has 1920x1200 and despite not being retina I prefer working on that machine than on my much faster 2014. Both are beautiful, but the screen estate of 17" can not be matched by 15" no matter how you spin it.

 

[mehdijobs]

Do you guys think Apple would do a minor update of the Mbp during the iPad even?

It’s been already 4/5 months, and in the past we always saw 2 updates per year.

 

[tcador]

Do you guys think Apple would do a minor update of the Mbp during the iPad even?

It’s been already 4/5 months, and in the past we always saw 2 updates per year.

My guess is 99.9% no of any of the updates models in July.

 

[Ma2k5]

small? based on what research? you could argue that Mac Pro, iMac Pro also cater to rather small markets, yet those are still here...17" was canned as there were no retina LCD and powerful GPUs in 2012 when Retina made debut; we could have now 17" with Retina, decent GPU, 32GB of DDR4, non-throttling CPUs and if you want to game or do some heavy lifting with eGPU that can drive internal screen as well

17" laptop category is just another category Apple diligently ignores, with rest of other stuff (iPod touch, iPad mini, Mac mini, Apple displays, Airport routers and we instead get emojis, Watch bands, dumb speaker, Apple's view on politics etc)

I would buy one in a heartbeat, no matter the price. I have mid 2014 MBP and 2xMBP 17" (one 2006, second 2008). The 2008 has 1920x1200 and despite not being retina I prefer working on that machine than on my much faster 2014. Both are beautiful, but the screen estate of 17" can not be matched by 15" no matter how you spin it.

Small based on the research Apple did when they decided to can the 17” (as well as the 11” Air) - if you was a profitable enough of a market, they would have created 17” models...

They don’t create models based on what YOU would buy in a heartbeat. There are people who would buy an iPhone with a physical keyboard, doesn’t mean they are going to make one now.

 

[koyoot]

Small based on the research Apple did when they decided to can the 17” (as well as the 11” Air) - if you was a profitable enough of a market, they would have created 17” models...

They don’t create models based on what YOU would buy in a heartbeat. There are people who would buy an iPhone with a physical keyboard, doesn’t mean they are going to make one now.

And large 15 and 17 inch gaming laptops are hitting back. Nobody is ditching them, because they SELL! Only Apple was not able to sell, because they offered 17 inch laptop with 15 inch hardware. Get out of the sandbox that Apple created for you and start thinking globally. Apple ditched 17 inch because it was underpowered for its size, and overpriced, for its size. That is why nobody bought it. EVERYBODY else is selling 17 inch laptops, because they have high margin, but give back certain performance level, for money asked. Apple NEVER DID.

R2FX wants one gaming laptop with very decent level of performance, which is exact point of 17 inch laptop in this context.

 

[Howard2k]

Do you guys think Apple would do a minor update of the Mbp during the iPad even?

It’s been already 4/5 months, and in the past we always saw 2 updates per year.

My phone is ringing. It's possible it's Scarlett Johansson, but that seems unlikely. Almost equally so.
13" nTB perhaps, but not the current TB line-up.

 

[Queen6]

My phone is ringing. It's possible it's Scarlett Johansson, but that seems unlikely. Almost equally so.
13" nTB perhaps, but not the current TB line-up.

Nah, she's busy speaking with me about Apple's new 17" MBP

Q-6

 

[Ma2k5]

And large 15 and 17 inch gaming laptops are hitting back. Nobody is ditching them, because they SELL! Only Apple was not able to sell, because they offered 17 inch laptop with 15 inch hardware. Get out of the sandbox that Apple created for you and start thinking globally. Apple ditched 17 inch because it was underpowered for its size, and overpriced, for its size. That is why nobody bought it. EVERYBODY else is selling 17 inch laptops, because they have high margin, but give back certain performance level, for money asked. Apple NEVER DID.

R2FX wants one gaming laptop with very decent level of performance, which is exact point of 17 inch laptop in this context.

They aren't hitting back, those manufacturers decided to sell to a niche market. Even those who provide 17" gaming laptops, it is their 15" which are the mainstream/popular gaming notebooks in the premium space (RazerBlade 15", Aero 15X, MSI G65 8RF etc).

Apple clearly don't feel the ROI for their R&D is worth creating 17" machines. In the professional environment, how many people even use 17" laptops? I don't think I've seen one in over 10 years in any office - however I've seen so many iMac's, desktops etc. 17" laptops might be something for gamers (to attempt to cool GPU's like the GTX1080, a GPU that will rarely ever be needed in a professional environment), but we all know how Gaming and Mac's get along.

 

[Queen6]

They aren't hitting back, those manufacturers decided to sell to a niche market. Even those who provide 17" gaming laptops, it is their 15" which are the mainstream/popular gaming notebooks in the premium space (RazerBlade 15", Aero 15X, MSI G65 8RF etc).

Apple clearly don't feel the ROI for their R&D is worth creating 17" machines. In the professional environment, how many people even use 17" laptops? I don't think I've seen one in over 10 years in any office. Might be something for gamers, but we all know how Gaming and Mac's get along.

I've go two relatively new 17.3" notebooks, equally very much the exception more than the rule. Apple's 17" didn't differentiate enough from the 15" MBP, was over priced for the average user, and at the time of removal there was no Retina display available. Apple has also reduced it's professional footprint, so like it, or loath it the 17" was always destined to go...

Q-6

 

[Mr Screech]

You used to see the 17" in the creative (freelance/advertising/film) industry a lot.

If I go from workstation to laptop, I'd like as little adjustment as possible.
The 17" provided the best option.

Having a portable mac with a big screen might not be for everyone, but for a pro it certainly is, and there is no substitute!

Even the size to have a keyboard with numpad helps.

 

[koyoot]

They aren't hitting back, those manufacturers decided to sell to a niche market. Even those who provide 17" gaming laptops, it is their 15" which are the mainstream/popular gaming notebooks in the premium space (RazerBlade 15", Aero 15X, MSI G65 8RF etc).

Apple clearly don't feel the ROI for their R&D is worth creating 17" machines. In the professional environment, how many people even use 17" laptops? I don't think I've seen one in over 10 years in any office - however I've seen so many iMac's, desktops etc. 17" laptops might be something for gamers (to attempt to cool GPU's like the GTX1080, a GPU that will rarely ever be needed in a professional environment), but we all know how Gaming and Mac's get along.

Over last year Windows PC business shipped 200 million laptops around the globe. Apple shipped just 10 million, and is accounted in that 200 mln number. In those 200 mln Laptops, 5 millions are 17 inch, and bigger laptops. That nieche is fu***** huge. It is 50% of ALL Apple laptop sales. Why are they selling? Because they provide best gaming opportunity on the road, out of all laptops. Apple never was able to achieve this level of sales because of the very reasons I told you in the first post: Overpriced, underpowered.

Yes, ROI will never make Apple bring back 17 inch sales. Because of their design choices, not because 17 inch laptops do not sell.

 

[KarmaRocket]

This is just my opinion, but I think things are changing now with laptops as desktop replacements. You will never get the same performance as a desktop, but with hexacore CPU's, faster internal M.2 drives, and the Nvidia 10 series graphics, we're finally seeing some parity and reasons why you can use a laptop as your main machine. The Nvidia 10 series graphics were a game changer in that regard.

It used to be gamers who benefited and enjoyed having a laptop as a gaming machine they can lug around to their friends house or a LAN party (I know less and less gamers do that nowadays). However, I'm seeing more heavier 17" laptops in the creative/professional fields. Cost will always be a factor, and of course performance, but I think some people would prefer the convenience of having a "good enough" machine they can carry anywhere over having a desktop they can only use at home or work.

I would love to see Apple come out with another 17" MBP. If it had nvidia graphics and actual ports, it would be the first time I line up at the Apple store for any of their products

 

[koyoot]

This is just my opinion, but I think things are changing now with laptops as desktop replacements. You will never get the same performance as a desktop, but with hexacore CPU's, faster internal M.2 drives, and the Nvidia 10 series graphics, we're finally seeing some parity and reasons why you can use a laptop as your main machine. The Nvidia 10 series graphics were a game changer in that regard.

It used to be gamers who benefited and enjoyed having a laptop as a gaming machine they can lug around to their friends house or a LAN party (I know less and less gamers do that nowadays). However, I'm seeing more heavier 17" laptops in the creative/professional fields. Cost will always be a factor, and of course performance, but I think some people would prefer the convenience of having a "good enough" machine they can carry anywhere over having a desktop they can only use at home or work.

I would love to see Apple come out with another 17" MBP. If it had nvidia graphics and actual ports, it would be the first time I line up at the Apple store for any of their products

Nvidia Mobile GPUs are not in any way equal to desktop models. GTX 1070 Max-Q performs like GTX 1060 desktop(5% faster, to be precise), 1080 Max-Q performs like GTX 1070, desktop. Its exactly like it was in the past... 5 generations. Mobile GPUs are -1 performance bracket vs. desktop GPUs, solely because of... 50% lower clock speeds.

 

[Ma2k5]

Over last year Windows PC business shipped 200 million laptops around the globe. Apple shipped just 10 million, and is accounted in that 200 mln number. In those 200 mln Laptops, 5 millions are 17 inch, and bigger laptops. That nieche is fu***** huge. It is 50% of ALL Apple laptop sales. Why are they selling? Because they provide best gaming opportunity on the road, out of all laptops. Apple never was able to achieve this level of sales because of the very reasons I told you in the first post: Overpriced, underpowered.

Yes, ROI will never make Apple bring back 17 inch sales. Because of their design choices, not because 17 inch laptops do not sell.

I don’t know where you got those figures but let’s roll with them.

5/200 is 2.5%. Clearly niche.

So Apple can expect at best 2.5% if we go by PC trends - but probably not even 2.5% because a lot of 17” users are probably gamers, not professionals. If you are a gamer, you get a Windows machine, period instead of faffing about with Bootcamp. I’d also bet that the gamer users have far less disposable income than professional users, so they are also a more price sensitive market. A lot of 17” laptops are cheap plastic builds too, and Apple isn’t interested in that.

Saying that 5M 17” unit sales is half of Apple sales means it isn’t niche, is like saying “If Apple gets into the laptop market, it can get 200m unit sales”...

Anyway, if you want to argue about it, best you let Apple know how many sales they are missing out on, not me. Something tells me they know more than me or you on the matter, considering they became a trillion dollar company.

 

[KarmaRocket]

Nvidia Mobile GPUs are not in any way equal to desktop models. GTX 1070 Max-Q performs like GTX 1060 desktop(5% faster, to be precise), 1080 Max-Q performs like GTX 1070, desktop. Its exactly like it was in the past... 5 generations. Mobile GPUs are -1 performance bracket vs. desktop GPUs, solely because of... 50% lower clock speeds.

I never said they were equal. And my post clearly says laptops will not have the same performance as desktops.

I think you're wrong about the Nvidia 10 series being the same as past generations. They are the reason why gaming and creative professional work are being taken seriously on laptops. The 10 series are clearly better than any mobile 600/700/800 or 900 variant. By leaps and bounds better. Nothing like past generations where you saw a big gap between the mobile and desktop dGPU's.

 

[Falhófnir]

The only way I could see a return of a 17" MacBook pro would effectively be as a showcase piece - like the iMac pro made mobile. A low volume, high cost product that's not necessarily going to make the usual return on investment but acts as a halo product for the rest of the mac laptop line. As they've virtually moved the 15" pro into this space already (as far as mobile components allow) I don't even know if there's enough room above it; save for shoehorning in desktop parts (which in fairness they might well even have enough room to do in a 17" unibody sized design?).

For most users, 15" is actually too big, let alone 17".

I'd have to disagree on that, for any serious multi-window or split screen work over extended periods 15" is pretty much the floor. I wouldn't call having two documents open side by side a particularly niche workflow - and while, yes, it is doable on a 13" machine it's much more comfortable and functional on the larger screen. As far as plugging in for even more space, well, it's not always possible or desirable...

 

[Ma2k5]

I'd have to disagree on that, for any serious multi-window or split screen work over extended periods 15" is pretty much the floor. I wouldn't call having two documents open side by side a particularly niche workflow - and while, yes, it is doable on a 13" machine it's much more comfortable and functional on the larger screen. As far as plugging in for even more space, well, it's not always possible or desirable...

I’m as multi Window as you’ll get - VM’s, IDE, SQL Server, App etc. However, I really do value portability - and frankly, my workflow doesn’t improve much more on a 15” than a 13”, it does improve it a bit but it does come at a portability cost. Perhaps if I was in design/photography I’d appreciate it more? It’s not even just the screen size, but also screen placement. This is why connecting it up with separate monitor/keyboard/mouse is so desirable, although I understand it’s not always possible.

I don’t have the actual figures, but in my experience, the vast majority of laptops have been 13”/14” I believe (in industry). This is not in design but devs team, so it probably differs elsewhere. A lot of famous programmer blogs that I follow also seem to have very compact laptops as their go to machine interestingly!

 

[d0nK]

It's called desktops. Seriously, the market for the 17" market is so small. For most users, 15" is actually too big, let alone 17". Those who do need a bigger screen, find 17" not enough. Those who really do need the performance, will probably still find the 17" to be not enough.

For someone who really needs the power or screen size, external monitors and desktops are the preferred option.

For most music-makers, 15" is perfect, 13" is too small.