Could Todays Mac Pro Announcement Be a Sign of Whats to Come for the MacBook Pro

[aevan]

I do not blindly assume anyting. This week changed everything as far as Apple is concerned. They started to admit their errors in design...

I just hope they backpedal also on the rMBP as they are allegedly doing on the MacPro, iMac and also Mac Mini, even on the iPad

Backpedal on what, exactly?

USB-C? No way. Both the new iMacs and Mac Pros will be USB-C only.

Keyboard? Nope.

Specs? Sure, they will use better specs, but that has nothing to do with Mac Pro announcements.

Make it thicker? No way. And no practical benefits either.

So, what exactly do you expect them to backpedal on?

MBP is not for everyone, but those who like it, love it. And it's a financial success. There will be no backpedaling.
[doublepost=1491595906][/doublepost]

This nonsense is getting ridiculous. Intel states that 100C is a safe temperature to run their CPUs at and they give you full warranty for operating the CPU under these temperatures. If you think you understand thermal properties of Intel CPUs better then Intel engineers, then you probably should apply for a job there, they will certainly be more than happy to have your expertise. Until then, a cooling solution that allows the CPU to run within its thermal parameters is perfectly adequate.

Sir, please don't use reason and sound logic in what are clearly emotional rants.

 

[ugru]

Make it thicker? No way. And no practical benefits either.

No benefits other than the ability to put in, due to the use of a better cooling system made possible by the bigger body:

more powerful CPU (even a quad core in the 13")
and
more powerful GPU (nVidia 1060 or 1070 or top of the line mobile Polaris)
and
more RAM
and incidentally even a bigger battery

 

[Sanpete]

No benefits other than the possibility to put in, due to the possible use of a better cooling system:

more powerful CPU
and
more powerful GPU
and
more RAM
and incidentally even a bigger battery

The myth lives on! What more powerful CPU? What more powerful GPU? When did the case become too small for the chips you think Apple should be using? Going compare again to a 5-pound, 1" thick machine and pretend the MBP was ever intended to be anything remotely like that?

Again, not that facts matter, but there's already room for more RAM. There's already room for a larger battery. Again, the largest battery that can go in a laptop is only 23 watt-hours more.

 

[Eason85]

This nonsense is getting ridiculous. Intel states that 100C is a safe temperature to run their CPUs at and they give you full warranty for operating the CPU under these temperatures. If you think you understand thermal properties of Intel CPUs better then Intel engineers, then you probably should apply for a job there, they will certainly be more than happy to have your expertise. Until then, a cooling solution that allows the CPU to run within its thermal parameters is perfectly adequate.

Just because its safe for the CPU doesn't mean its safe for the other components. I've had plenty of laptop hardware failures due to heat. The CPU was fine; the other components weren't.
[doublepost=1491631503][/doublepost]

The myth lives on! What more powerful CPU? What more powerful GPU? When did the case become too small for the chips you think Apple should be using? Going compare again to a 5-pound, 1" thick machine and pretend the MBP was ever intended to be anything remotely like that?

Again, not that facts matter, but there's already room for more RAM. There's already room for a larger battery. Again, the largest battery that can go in a laptop is only 23 watt-hours more.

You deleted his suggestions lol. Of course, a 1060 or 1070 are ridiculous to put in such a small form factor for many reasons. Heat being the primary one (look at the AW13R3 if you want to see the cooling it takes to tame a 1060) but power being the second.

Apple got rid of their AC plug. TB3 allows a max of 100W. The 1060 + 45W CPU alone (nevermind display, SSD, speakers, etc) will need about 135W under load. This means Apple has limited their TDP envelope.

A reasonable suggestion based on case thermals would be 1050Ti. Asus's next Zenbook 5xx series is packing a 7700HQ + 1050Ti. Obviously though, Apple couldn't release it with a card that didn't exist and only as of next week is getting drivers for MacOS. Thank Nvidia for that. I also think a 1050Ti would go over the TB3 limit of 100W, however (it's at least a 65W card). So, as long as apple is charging over TB3, you're looking at very low wattage GPUs only: AMD's

I would love a quad core/iris option from Apple. If I can only get it in a 15"; fine, but it would be amazing to have in a 13". Cooling would be possible with good heatsink mating and dual fans for the CPU alone (no dGPU). MSI did this with a stealth gs30 a while ago, and clevo had an 11" quad core laptop a few years ago as well.

I doubt it will happen because then Apple will cannibalize their 15" sales.

 

[richinaus]

The myth lives on! What more powerful CPU? What more powerful GPU? When did the case become too small for the chips you think Apple should be using? Going compare again to a 5-pound, 1" thick machine and pretend the MBP was ever intended to be anything remotely like that?

Again, not that facts matter, but there's already room for more RAM. There's already room for a larger battery. Again, the largest battery that can go in a laptop is only 23 watt-hours more.

Does anyone know if there are any better mobile AMD GPU's coming up, that can go into the 15"?

The CPU is fine but what about VR.

 

[Eason85]

Does anyone know if there are any better mobile AMD GPU's coming up, that can go into the 15"?

The CPU is fine but what about VR.

100W - 45W (CPU PL1 limit, not counting 55w turbo pl2) - 35W (TDP for AMD GPU) - (3+10+5) [screen, audio, ssd, misc] = no headroom

Because of TB3 maxing at 100W power delivery, it's going to be a LONG time before "VR" gaming is possible on a 35W card. Right now, you're looking at twice that wattage at least to have a VR capable card like the 1060. Of course, imo VR is a total marketing ploy right now and there is nothing worth investing in VR for at the moment.


edit: not to mention apparently Apple's adapter maxes out at 90W? https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...016-2-9-GHz-460-Notebook-Review.195702.0.html (check energy management)

 

[richinaus]

I guess the solution would be the external card support via TB3 which wasn't dismissed on the recent Apple pro discussion. Nice and thin laptop with the external power - it makes so much sense if it can work well, and I don't understand why Apple wouldn't support that given the current disaster in Pro specced machines.

 

[Eason85]

I guess the solution would be the external card support via TB3 which wasn't dismissed on the recent Apple pro discussion. Nice and thin laptop with the external power - it makes so much sense if it can work well, and I don't understand why Apple wouldn't support that given the current disaster in Pro specced machines.

If you remember the Duo Dock days, we can only hope to return to those times. The Mantiz Venus is a TB3 enclosure with an internal SSD (sata) port. Being able to plug into that and get both your GPU and your storage drive filled with games? The dream.

That's why I can't wait to get a hold of a macbook 15 and see what I can do with it and the node, but 4000 USD is a bit of a heavy investment for something I might not be able to get to work...

 

[ugru]

I doubt it will happen because then Apple will cannibalize their 15" sales.

I don't think so, a 13" quad core without a dGPU would be a good choice for those not needing great CUDA or OpenCL performances...It will not have a huge impact on the 15" as long as they put in the 15" a powerful GPU to differenciate enough the performances...
I can see the tiers:
rMB - low power dual core
13" non TB rMBP - full power dual core (a rebranded Air, as stated by Apple itself)
13" TB rMBP full power quad core
15" TB rMPP full power quad core + High end CUDA/OpenCL dGPU

You deleted his suggestions lol.

Ignore him like I do, misquotes and blatant ignoance of facts and fisycs prove he is just a blind faith apologist and cannot open his eyes to different possibilies other than what Apple offers. I am starting to think he works in Apple's marketing division or he can even be Phil "My Ass" Shiller in disguise....

Of course, a 1060 or 1070 are ridiculous to put in such a small form factor for many reasons. Heat being the primary one (look at the AW13R3 if you want to see the cooling it takes to tame a 1060) but power being the second.

Of course, but the smaller TDP envelope was a bad design choice made by Apple (as in the Mac Pro, which they had to admit), not some constraint someone else imposed to them. I hope, as in the Mac Pro, that they are changing their mind.
[doublepost=1491634868][/doublepost]

That's why I can't wait to get a hold of a macbook 15 and see what I can do with it and the node, but 4000 USD is a bit of a heavy investment for something I might not be able to get to work...

Imagine what you could do with a 13" quad core....

Lower price, highest mobility, but when you are home: plug an eGPU and you will have a CUDA/OpenCL powerhouse.
[doublepost=1491635260][/doublepost]

I don't understand why Apple wouldn't support that given the current disaster in Pro specced machines.

Because until last week they were too full of themselves to admit it. Probably the disaggregated data sales of last quarter came in, which portrayed some failure they did not expect, finally convinced them.
"Follow the money" to find the culprit.

 

[Eason85]

I don't think so, a 13" quad core without a dGPU would be a good choice for those not needing great CUDA or OpenCL performances...It will not have a huge impact on the 15" as long as they put in the 15" a powerful GPU to differenciate enough the performances...
I can see the tiers:
rMB - low power dual core
13" non TB rMBP - full power dual core (a rebranded Air, as stated by Apple itself)
13" TB rMBP full power quad core
15" TB rMPP full power quad core + High end CUDA/OpenCL dGPU



Ignore him like I do, misquotes and blatant ignoance of facts and fisycs prove he is just a blind faith apologist and cannot open his eyes to different possibilies other than what Apple offers. I am starting to think he works in Apple's marketing division or he can even be Phil "My Ass" Shiller in disguise....



Of course, but the smaller TDP envelope was a bad design choice made by Apple (as in the Mac Pro, which they had to admit), not some constraint someone else imposed to them. I hope, as in the Mac Pro, that they are changing their mind.
[doublepost=1491634868][/doublepost]

Imagine what you could do with a 13" quad core....

Lower price, highest mobility, but when you are home: plug an eGPU and you will have a CUDA/OpenCL powerhouse.
[doublepost=1491635260][/doublepost]

Because until last week they were too full of themselves to admit it. Probably the disaggregated data sales of last quarter came in, which portrayed some failure they did not expect, finally convinced them.
"Follow the money" to find the culprit.

If there was a 13" quad core I'd have bought it on release day. Unfortunately, don't expect anything like that until at least 2018, when we're more likely to have 10nm chips.

 

[aevan]

Of course, but the smaller TDP envelope was a bad design choice made by Apple (as in the Mac Pro, which they had to admit), not some constraint someone else imposed to them. I hope, as in the Mac Pro, that they are changing their mind.

A bad design choice for a desktop designed to provide horsepower for a very specific audience.

It is a very GOOD design choice for a portable machine. People want lighter laptops, which is why the 17" MBP was by far the least popular and why the 13" is the most popular MBP.

They are not changing their mind, and they shouldn't, honestly.

 

[Sanpete]

Just because its safe for the CPU doesn't mean its safe for the other components. I've had plenty of laptop hardware failures due to heat. The CPU was fine; the other components weren't.

Again, there has been zero evidence advanced of a problem of this kind in the new MBP. Rather there is evidence above that this isn't a problem. The other components appear to stay within reasonable temps even when the CPU core is hot.

You deleted his suggestions lol. Of course, a 1060 or 1070 are ridiculous to put in such a small form factor for many reasons. Heat being the primary one (look at the AW13R3 if you want to see the cooling it takes to tame a 1060) but power being the second.

No, I didn't delete anything. Rather the poster added stuff while I was typing. LOL!

I gather you agree it's ridiculous to contemplate putting in the processors the poster suggests. They wouldn't work in any recent MBP chassis, not just the 2016 one.

You appear to also see why the 1050Ti is also an unlikely candidate. Besides the points you mention, what would the battery life be? The fan noise? I suspect there would similar issues with the quad-core 13" Iris Pro machine you long for. As pointed out before, put in the larger components needed including battery and you're looking at a 13" nearly the size and weight of a 15" anyway, so why bother?

The reason Apple has an 87W charger is presumably that a more powerful one would only be needed for a machine that gets lousy battery life. The battery limit is under 100 watt-hours.

Ignore him like I do, misquotes and blatant ignoance of facts and fisycs prove he is just a blind faith apologist and cannot open his eyes to different possibilies other than what Apple offers. I am starting to think he works in Apple's marketing division or he can even be Phil "My Ass" Shiller in disguise....

Wow, facts really upset some people! When people start ignoring contrary facts and resort to insults and hand waving instead of dealing with facts it's a sure sign of departure from reality.

Of course, but the smaller TDP envelope was a bad design choice made by Apple (as in the Mac Pro, which they had to admit), not some constraint someone else imposed to them. I hope, as in the Mac Pro, that they are changing their mind.

Apple, unlike some of its more rabid critics, has to deal with a world ruled by the laws of physics. There are sound reasons for the choices made in the MBP, explained above.

 

[Dave245]

It seems to me that Apple realised the 2013 Mac Pro wasn't the best design or the best way forward for those who want to upgrade their machines. The iMac "Pro" comment was interesting tho, I think because Apple confirmed that a lot of Mac Pro users have switched over to the iMac and often do use the iMac that they will add higher specs to the upcoming iMacs probably adding higher end options to order. With regards to the MacBook Pro 2016 I don't think Apple are un-happy with it Phil Schiller said

"as you know we just did a major update to the MacBook Pro line. That's going very well. Customers absolutely love it, we've had a lot of customers buying them, big numbers as I've said 20 percent growth, year over year, we are very proud of those products, we know there's feedback on things that can be done better on them. We know they matter to our Pro customers and we have every intention to advance that MacBook Pro line in the years ahead and make it better. But we think we are off to a good start there."

 

[ugru]

They are not changing their mind, and they shouldn't, honestly.

They are changing their mind nearly on their entire line, and they should, honestly, redesign also the rMBP:

Mac Pro: clearly stated (unthinkable as of last week)
iMac: they are putting, as a bridge solution, xeon CPUs and ECCM RAM (unthinkable as of last week, i bet it will be thicker)
Mac Mini: "leaks" say they are going to make a bigger and more powerful one.(unthinkable as of last week)
iPad: they made it thicker (bigger battery and without orrendous protruding camera lens).

 

[monkeydax]

Mac Mini: "leaks" say they are going to make a bigger and more powerful one.(unthinkable as of last week)
iPad: they made it thicker (bigger battery and without orrendous protruding camera lens).

Your examples may not be the most applicable to the MBP line.
1. The Mac mini does not have to have the same portable form factor the MBP needs, and its a complete redesign where they can make it thicker. Making the current tbMBP thicker with the same current design would be unthinkable and impossible (at least in my opinion).
2. The iPad becoming thicker is simply because it is using a cheaper manufacturing process from the iPad Air (vs the iPad Air 2 with the laminated display), and the bigger battery was just reverting to the iPad Air chassis, with no marked improvement in battery life.

 

[ugru]

with no marked improvement in battery life.

On the contrary, reviews say this is the best iPad up to now in this regard

 

[monkeydax]

On the contrary, reviews say this is the best iPad up to now in this regard

Could be! But certainly battery life wasn't the complain before, so I would guess that wasn't the reason to move back to a thicker design.

 

[ugru]

Not that I am aware of, but the butt ugly protruding camera and the vibration when listened at full volume were precisely due to the useless thinnes...

Both problems solved on the new thicker iPad.

 

[Sanpete]

Probably the self-esteem of the machines would improve if there wasn't so much emphasis on thinness. But the stress over performance would still be there.

 

[aevan]

They are changing their mind nearly on their entire line, and they should, honestly, redesign also the rMBP:

Mac Pro: clearly stated (unthinkable as of last week)
iMac: they are putting, as a bridge solution, xeon CPUs and ECCM RAM (unthinkable as of last week, i bet it will be thicker)
Mac Mini: "leaks" say they are going to make a bigger and more powerful one.(unthinkable as of last week)
iPad: they made it thicker (bigger battery and without orrendous protruding camera lens).

People will find "proof" for whatever they want to believe in.

Mac Pro is the only "reversal". iMac - they are giving an option because they can, there will be no major redesign here. Apparently, they just decided to offer better components because they can. And it doesn't really matter if the Mac Mini gets thicker because it's not a mobile product, it's not even a flagship product, they can do whatever, really, without indicating any major change.

As for the iPad? The iPad is thicker, because it's cheaper. They are not using laminated screens, and that's why it's thicker mostly. It's a cost-cutting measure, and if it has a longer battery life, that is just a SIDE EFFECT, just like the iPhone SE has better battery life than an iPhone 6S, because they used an old design with less power-spending components. They didn't make a new, thicker design - they used an OLD one, to cut costs and sell at lower prices - and the result was, sure, the battery life was slightly better. But they were never going to make the iPad Pro or the flagship iPhone noticeably thicker (unless it's a fraction of a mm or something, like with the Apple Watch 2, iPhone 6S, iPad Mini 2, etc - and they've been doing this for years).

Also, what would Apple gain by adding a few mm to the MBP? Reports indicate that they could squeeze a bigger battery in this new design. Also the RAM situation has nothing to do with thickness because without low-power RAM even the biggest flight-approved battery wouldn't give good results (as the battery life of any 32Gb RAM laptop clearly showed, so it has nothing to do with thickness). A much more powerful GPU like 1080p wouldn't fit even in older, thicker MBP models. Decision to go all USB-C has nothing to do with thickness.

So, I ask you, what would the MBP gain by gaining a few mm thickness?

The only thing Apple may decide to do that could be a slight change of course for the MBP is to offer a non-TB, lower-cost model of the 15". That's all.

 

[ugru]

So, I ask you, what would the MBP gain by gaining a few mm thickness?

You already asked and I already answered, post 127

 

[aevan]

You already asked and I already answered, post 127

But you are aware you made a mistake in that post? I thought this was explained by other posters - the points you made have little to do with thickness in practical sense.

A more powerful CPU does not require a bigger body because the MBP already used the most powerful CPU at the time and the newer one (Kaby Lake) does not need more space to operate. As for the throttling - again, you don't need a thicker laptop for any benefit. The new MBP already throttles less than any previous MBP (and the Kaby Lake is even more efficient) and equally to competing laptops, so - no - there would be no tangible benefit. As CPUs get more efficient, laptops are getting thinner.

As for the GPU - the 1060 or 1070 wouldn't fit even in the 2015 model. So, only if they made it, like, 2011 thick. No one wants that weight in 2017, right? If you do, fine, but Apple was never in this camp. But ok, this is the closest to reality of all the posts. Still, it's more of a business decision - if Nvidia had a deal with Apple, they would make a 1050 that could fit in the new design.

More RAM - also, as others explained, more RAM has exactly NOTHING to do with thickness. The only way to get 32Gb is by using a non-LP RAM. This would give a bad battery life even if they did put a 100mAh battery inside, as you can see with any Dell XPS equipped with 32Gb. Again, Apple may decide to offer 32Gb and sacrifice battery life or just wait a year more for low-powered 32Gb RAM. Either way, it has nothing to do with thickness.

Finally - a bigger battery. Well, the reports say that Apple will be able to put a 100mAh battery in the new design if they want to. That would increase the weight. Again, they can opt to do so, and again - this does not require a thicker body. And putting anything over 100mAh is not possible because of flight regulations, and no laptop manufacturer, as far as I know, does that.

So - a thicker body would:

NOT offer a better CPU as you can put the most powerful one in the new design.
NOT offer a better GPU by itself.
NOT offer more RAM - as others have explained, RAM has nothing to do with thickness.
NOT offer a better battery, as you can put a 100mAh battery in this new design, however, at the cost of weight.

So, basically, there are no real downsides to this thinner design, unless you want to return to 2011 sizes for the GPU. And you don't really expect Apple to do that?

Look, you don't have to like the new MBP. All I'm saying is - the Mac Pro situation and the MBP situation are not even close. This new design is, more or less, the same when it comes to power and efficiency, as the one used in the past 5 years. And in these 5 years, the MacBook Pros were a tremendous success - so why would you think it's the same case as with the MBP that was cool but kinda flawed from the beginning?

 

[ugru]

A more powerful CPU does not require a bigger body because the MBP already used the most powerful CPU at the time

As for the GPU - the 1060 or 1070 wouldn't fit even in the 2015 model

Wrong.

Out there there are

- 13" quad cores.
- 15" laptops with nVidia 1060 that are 0,70 inches thick (just 20% more than actual MBP, the same thickness of last generation retina display)...that is the direction they should go.

See, by going thicker they could use a better cooling system and therefore better CPU and better GPU. QED

 

[aevan]

Wrong.

Out there there are

- 13" quad cores.
- 15" laptops with nVidia 1060 that are 0,70 inches thick (just 20% more than actual MBP, the same thickness of last generation retina display)...that is the direction thay should go.

See, by going thicker they could use a better cooling system and therefore better CPU and better GPU. QED

Apple never offered quad-cores in 13", even with thicker designs.

As for competing laptops with 1060 - I assume you're talking about the Razor Blade. However, the battery life here is the main issue - it sucks. If you want MBP battery life, you'd need a battery larger than 100mHa and 2011. thickness. QED!

Also, most people don't need such a strong gpu on a laptop and prefer mobility and battery life, while everyone who buys a Mac Pro wants extreme performance. I don't understand how you can't see the difference here.

Again, my only point is a response to the thread question - no, the Mac Pro decision tells us nothing about the MBP.

 

[ugru]

Apple never offered quad-cores in 13", even with thicker designs.

Apple never offered a quad core 13" for marketing reasons because they want it thin ("design themselves into a thermal corner") and because, as the laptop line is now, it will cannibalize 15" sales due to lack of a decent performance gap.

Also, most people don't need such a strong gpu on a laptop and prefer mobility and battery life

A quad core 13" should be their dream come true

As for competing laptops with 1060 - I assume you're talking about the Razor Blade. However, the battery life here is the main issue - it sucks.

Regarding battery life, Razer blade is a 14" with a 70 Whr battery.

Apple can make a thicker 15" and can put a 99.5 Whr battery (like rMBP 2015), problem solved.
During light tasks, the system will use integrated GPU, along with kaby like optimization. In this scenario a 99.5 Whr battery will last up to 12/13 hours (even more, or at least as the 2016 rMBP).
Under heavy load, every laptop in the world (2016 rMBP included) sucks.