Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Yr Blues, Nov 4, 2016.
Could that technically work?
From what I have read it is a chipset limitation if you want >16gb you need desktop ram used.
But Schiller said it was to constrained by battery life.
How is it that most pc laptop lines, even some 13", have a 32gb ram option? Apple is trying to use parts designed for tablet-pc hybrids. They are trying to pull one over on their customers by calling it a pro machine and charging pro prices for what is basically surface tablet hardware.
Using regular DDR4 over an LP variant would have a negative impact on the battery, yes.
Using 32GB of LPDDR3 would also have an impact as Apple is already using the highest capacity LPDDR3 chips to get to 16GB. Doubling of the physical chips on the PCB requires both extra space as well as more power.
I wouldn't say "most" offer a 32GB option first of all, but those PCs are doing it by sacrificing battery life.
Surface tablet hardware? Give me a break.
Apple wants to keep the MacBook above 10 hours and I really do appreciate that. I just think a compromise would be charger-powered accessible memory.
Just tell people that having 32 GB of memory will decrease the battery time xx%. Then let people make a decision whether to buy or not. Options are good.
Not really, they just use a slightly bigger battery, instead of cutting as much as possible of it, to save a dime.
Apple should let people choose between a 10 hour macbook or a macbook pro that doesn't sacrifice performance for an absurdly long battery life. Who are these people who need to sit at starbucks for 10 hours and can't access an outlet?
Easy as that huh?
I think you're underestimating just how much more battery would be needed if Apple went to regular DDR4.
Not necessarily possible, due to the way memory is banked. If there are two DIMMs, you want to power them both even if you are only using half the memory, to increase write speeds. If they designed their own memory modules it could possibly be done, but it would increase cost as the bus interfaces would have to power up and down additional dimms (and what happens when you are using 17GB and you pull the plug? It would have to keep powering those DIMMs until everything could be paged out). The page tables in the processor would also have to be constantly refreshed - it's really quite a mess. CPUs are designed such that they assume that the amount of available physical memory isn't changing.
It dumps everything to virtual ram and a warning window pops up, asking to save your work. Then it proceeds to dump the memory in an orderly fashion. It's just magic, really.
16GB DDR4 sodimm RAM? 20-40% less than the 16 GB DDR3 RAM in my 2011 MacBook Pro.
I get 7-8 hours on my XPS15, which is user upgradable to 32GB ram. Although I only have 16 in it right now.
On my 2015 15" rMBP, I get 9-10 hours.
So it's really not that big of a difference, either way I still have to carry a charger with me during the day.
Is yours the 1080p screen or the 4K screen? It'd be nice to hear from someone who has a 32GB XPS 15.
We're talking about the 2016 MacBook Pro and LPDDR3. Not regular DDR3 in your 2011 MacBook Pro. Why even try to make such a comparison?
Maybe someday when Apple designs its own MACroprocessors.
Right, just like the 13 and 15inch models used to both have different battery life claims. Wouldn't be tough for them to offer a specific configuration that claims 8 hours, or whatever.
Would it sell? No. Because it would be slow, awkward, expensive, take tons of space away and very likely have major stability issues. If you need a workstation, get a workstation. For the rest 99% of users out there, 16GB is more than fine.
Everyone needs to read that statement in red. It's 100% correct.
They have been doing this for years for some reason only now people are beginning to catch on and complain whereas in the past they just derided the people that pointed it out as Mac haters.
Then people would complain that Apple is crippling the machine by not allowing them to use all the RAM they paid for when on the go. People just want a reason to complain.
OMG! Apple uses more advanced, more expensive, faster, more energy efficient RAM! THOSE BASTARDS!
You people are truly incredible
So you're saying using DDR4 would suck, but yet here I am, on a laptop with RAM that consumes a lot more battery that DDR4.
What's your actual point? That DDR4 is better than the DDR3 from your 2011 laptop? Great. That's how it should be. Fortunately for all of us here, Apple isn't selling a 2011 MacBook Pro anymore or using power-hungry DDR3.
I'm saying DDR4 uses more energy than LPDDR3 and Apple prioritized better battery life for everyone over giving a very small percentage of users who need 32GB the option.
If you need 32GB, then buy something else right now or wait until Apple has the right hardware from Intel to give us a 32GB option without significantly compromising their battery life targets. Pretty straightforward.
What if it was powered by unicorns and rainbows?
As much chance as your idea.