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.
Why did Apple did not announce a new 16" rMBP ?
- Thread starter magneeto
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Waiting for the 2020 MBP
Might as well start this one. 2020 is surely the year of the redesign.
forums.macrumors.com
Personally, I don’t think Apple Silicon is ready to handle more than two thunderbolt ports at the moment. It isn’t powerful enough to run multiple displays from thunderbolt on any of the new Macs and the Mini has had the thunderbolt ports cut in half.
They need more time, for whatever reason, to get Apple Silicon ready for more ports that the 16” has and needs.
They need more time, for whatever reason, to get Apple Silicon ready for more ports that the 16” has and needs.
Probably the M1 chipset is not powerful enough to replace the 16" 6 core and 8 core models when comparing overall performances. I'm sure they have a beefed up M1 chipset ready for the 16".
Sounds similar like they are planning to add high powered boosters to the Rocket Engines ! For a massive take off !!
I suspect the 2021 16" MBP will have a new design and even more powerful Apple silicone - i.e. an M1X with 32GB RAM would make more sense than the current M1 at 16GB for the higher end model.
There are also rumors the new 16" might have a microLED screen.
There are also rumors the new 16" might have a microLED screen.
The questions for me on the remaining Pros is how do they cope with the range of needs that Pros have. We need a M1 varient that can cope with customisable memory and storage - the M1 released yesterday addresses the "consumer" end of the market, but we've already seen people complain that the Mini needs more memory and bandwidth for high-end use. (Hence why the intel Mini still lives with 10Gb Ethernet and memory upgrades)
Also the GPU in the M1 doesn't come close to what the 5600m gives the 16". I hope when they replace it, the GPU is also an upgrade and not a downgrade. I think they need more time on the GPU front.
That has nothing to do with “power” as it’s already an insanely powerful chip. As explained to me in a previous thread this design is as close to the A series as macs are going to have. So the dual monitors is a hardware limitation of the video stream output.
The M1X (or whatever they’re going to call it) isn’t going to have these limitations as the M1 is ONLY for the ENTRY level macs.
Regarding timing, Apple bought up all available 5nm manufacturing capacity available at TSMC for a pretty penny. I doubt there’s even capacity worldwide at this moment of time to produce the “performance” oriented M series in the bulk required to fulfill shipments.
I’m obviously not talking about the CPU/GPU power of the chip being the limit. The chip is insanely powerful. There is definitely something going on that it can’t power more than two thunderbolt ports. Whether that’s a bandwidth limitation or something else, I’m not sure. There’s absolutely a limitation when the Macs these are replacing could run multiple displays. They aren’t going to limit multiple displays to the high end models when it has been a feature of all models for years. There’s some hardware limitation at play here, hopefully it will be resolved by the next generation of the base models.
It’s a limitation of the A14 base design that only supports 2 video streams. I believe it has to do with the “DRAM channels” as it was explained to me.
The performance processors will NOT have this limitation, no chance in hell.
My guess would be probably a combination of further development needs of the tech for the 16-inch combined with high prioritization of getting the 13-inch MacBook Pro and MacBook Air ready for a pre-Christmas launch. These are really the systems that will determine mass market acceptance of Apple Silicon and IMO by and far the best choices for the initial launch, so it isn't surprising to see these systems get prioritization.
Seems like everyone is on the same page.
Apple has marketed the current M1 as a chip appropriate for their lower end models and it does that very VERY well. In both CPU performance and GPU performance the M1 beats what was in the Intel MB air, base 13” pro and Mac mini. The same can’t be said for the 16” MacBook Pro or any iMac. CPU wise, Apple has a winner but GPU wise, it would be a downgrade and we all know apple will not put out anything that’s not clearly better than the Intel models. So here is my guess for the new 16” MacBook Pro:
- M1X chip with incredible graphics performance (maybe integrated or maybe discrete). I truly believe the graphics performance will be surprisingly great.
- To keep up with today’s GPUs it will need to have some sort of raytracing abilo
- Standard 32gb of RAM (especially if graphics memory is shared)
- It WILL be able to beat out current AMD GPU offerings. Apple has no choice but to make sure they are offering something better than the last gen.
- Slightly updated design (since Apple chips require less thermals than intels super hot chips (any current 16” owner knows what I mean)
- Brighter screen (perhaps mini LED) w/ HDR support. Something like an XDR display for MacBooks.
- Over 24 hour batter life for light task (over 8 hours for heavy task)
Apple has marketed the current M1 as a chip appropriate for their lower end models and it does that very VERY well. In both CPU performance and GPU performance the M1 beats what was in the Intel MB air, base 13” pro and Mac mini. The same can’t be said for the 16” MacBook Pro or any iMac. CPU wise, Apple has a winner but GPU wise, it would be a downgrade and we all know apple will not put out anything that’s not clearly better than the Intel models. So here is my guess for the new 16” MacBook Pro:
- M1X chip with incredible graphics performance (maybe integrated or maybe discrete). I truly believe the graphics performance will be surprisingly great.
- To keep up with today’s GPUs it will need to have some sort of raytracing abilo
- Standard 32gb of RAM (especially if graphics memory is shared)
- It WILL be able to beat out current AMD GPU offerings. Apple has no choice but to make sure they are offering something better than the last gen.
- Slightly updated design (since Apple chips require less thermals than intels super hot chips (any current 16” owner knows what I mean)
- Brighter screen (perhaps mini LED) w/ HDR support. Something like an XDR display for MacBooks.
- Over 24 hour batter life for light task (over 8 hours for heavy task)
Like in my dream car! Whenever it gets around to being released:Sounds similar like they are planning to add high powered boosters to the Rocket Engines ! For a massive take off !!
Elon Musk on Tesla Roadster's SpaceX package: 'It’s like full-on James Bond'
Elon Musk made new comments about the new Tesla Roadster being equipped with a SpaceX package consisting of cold air...
electrek.co
We have only seen one chip variant for the devices that sit at the low end of the Mac range. That is not the chip for the 16" MBP.
Arm have shown reference designs with 128 cores and lots of PCIe bandwidth. While Apple won't be using those designs as they forked in their own direction long ago, it shows the M1 chip is far from what is possible. I expect the 16" MBP to have more CPU and GPU cores, plus better connectivity. It may even have the Lifuka GPU rumoured for the iMac. Whatever the configuration, I will be surprised if it doesn't outperform the Intel model it replaces by a significant margin.
Arm have shown reference designs with 128 cores and lots of PCIe bandwidth. While Apple won't be using those designs as they forked in their own direction long ago, it shows the M1 chip is far from what is possible. I expect the 16" MBP to have more CPU and GPU cores, plus better connectivity. It may even have the Lifuka GPU rumoured for the iMac. Whatever the configuration, I will be surprised if it doesn't outperform the Intel model it replaces by a significant margin.
Wait, I'm missing something. The 13" MBP with the M1 *won't* be able to output to two 4k external monitors, even with a powered USB-C dock? My two year old ThinkPad can do this.
Not benchmarks, precisely, but I caught on the keynote that the M1 GPU is supposed to be capable of 2.6 Tflops. I know that's far from the only metric, but just as a rough comparison (assuming FP32 performance):
Mid 2020 13" MBP 2-port - Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645 @ 0.806 Tflops
Mid 2020 13" MBP 4-port - Intel Iris Plus G7 @ 1.075 Tflops
I've read estimates of Tiger Lake's latest integrated Xe GPU in the i7-1185G7 coming in @ 2.4Tflops.
Current top option on the MBP16:
Late 2019 16" MBP 4-port - AMD Radeon Pro 5600M HBM @ 5.3Tflops
So on that metric, the M1 would be ahead of Intel's very latest fully integrated GPU, but still less than half the performance of the current top option on the MBP16... which, in the realm of GPUs, is a highly binned upper-midrange GPU. So still some way to go to provide >current GPU performance on the big notebooks and even more the desktops.
Apple isn't pitching these early Apple Silicon computers to pros yet - and the 16" MBP is a pro tool. Much more so than than the low end 13" MBP (which is basically a luxury Macbook Air rather than a pro machine).
Developers need to catch up and get pro software updated as well so that Professionals (i.e. people that use their Mac to earn a living) can use software optimized for Apple Silicon vs. Rosetta.
Truth is, we don't know yet how well Rosetta translated apps run in the real-world. They might be great, they might be not so great. But either way we know they won't be optimized and won't run as they might natively.
Developers need to catch up and get pro software updated as well so that Professionals (i.e. people that use their Mac to earn a living) can use software optimized for Apple Silicon vs. Rosetta.
Truth is, we don't know yet how well Rosetta translated apps run in the real-world. They might be great, they might be not so great. But either way we know they won't be optimized and won't run as they might natively.
Crap. I will see if they remedy this with a software update, otherwise, I will sell it next year with when the 16" Silicon model comes out. The 13" model is perfect for sharing two screens, as their Intel versions currently do today. It's odd they removed that capability. The 16" (or 15") is too big to share two screens with on my desk.
Sadly, I strongly suspect it's a hardware limitation on display pathways. I'd guess it's based on iPad/iPhone SoCs that support a single external display out.
The latest Tiger Lake Xe integrated GPU has four display pathways as I recall, so it's definitely possible in this sort of thing, and I'd expect to see more than the current two (internal + 1 external), come next year's Apple Silicon. I agree it's pretty disappointing in the 13" MBP, though I'd understand it in the Air.
The Apple share Iphone/Ipad CPU for lower the manufacturing costs of common consumer market.
As the high performance CPU's demand is relative very low, actually redesign and manufacturing own chips costs is much expensive that Intel/AMD share costs by all PC markets.
As the high performance CPU's demand is relative very low, actually redesign and manufacturing own chips costs is much expensive that Intel/AMD share costs by all PC markets.