You don't have this laptop. I have this laptop. I have the last gen and the gen before that and the gen before that.
In almost all tasks suitable for laptops this 2018 model shows 20-30% improvement over last year. That is exactly what one should expect when you have two additional cores but slower clock speed than previous. That is a massive gain.
I still don't buy this idea of tasks being "suitable for laptops" - in the Windows world there are laptops which are more powerful than Apple's fastest Desktop. There are no "laptop tasks" there are only
tasks.
On the Mac, VR is something that can only be done (well) on the biggest, heaviest most expensive desktop Apple currently makes. Get a Windows laptop with an equivalent GPU, and VR is something you can do on a device <20mm thick. So is VR a "laptop task" or a "desktop task"?
What you're saying by "suitable for laptops" is really "suitable for
Apple laptops", and unfortunately for Apple, a lot of content creation pros are moving beyond that arbitrary cutoff.
Furthermore, for two years Intel promised 10nm process by now. They kept stone walling, failing and changing their roadmap. It must have been a headache for Jonny Ive's design team. If they expected 10nm there was no reason to redesign the chassis. They did an excellent job in this context.
If you're arguing against this you're just beating your head against a wall for no good reason.
Intel are now saying 10nm end of next year.
Complaining about Intel is like blaming gravity for the results of jumping off a cliff - The processors that exist, are the processors that exist. That's reality, immutable and unchanging. The fact that Apple is so committed to a case that was designed in anticipation of a 10nm processor, and therefore isn't suitable for the 14nm processors they ended up being able to get, is a testament to the failure of
Apple's design philosophy, not Intel's.
Dust is a part of reality as well, was it reality's fault that Apple's keyboards can't handle it, or was it Apple's for coming up with a design for a
mobile product, that can't handle being out of a cleanroom environment?
It's not reasonable to plan for a best case scenario, and then complain that the results are some unavoidable fault of fate, when the worst case scenario happens.
[doublepost=1532882945][/doublepost]
Furthermore, for two years Intel promised 10nm process by now. They kept stone walling, failing and changing their roadmap. It must have been a headache for Jonny Ive's design team. If they expected 10nm there was no reason to redesign the chassis.
To continue on that point, it's further evidence of the inherent Black Swan fragility of Apple's culture. It's creation of a safe harbour for NIH attitudes effectively killed them prior to NeXT's takeover, and it's their biggest existential threat now (assuming they haven't crossed into a critical mass that is essentially failure-proof, just by virtue of the return they can get on their invested cash hoard that's unrelated to their actual products and services).
Apple's problem, is that their designs are brittle - they designed for a 10nm chip, and when that didn't come about, the calls from the Apple sphere is that they should go to ARM. They designed the Mac Pro for dual low-power GPUs, and when that paradigm didn't come about... they lost 5+ years of relevance in the Workstation market.
Rather than calling for their design culture to change, to become flexible, and shock-tolerant to events that are outside of their control, Apple's culture seeks to own and eliminate that variability. The results - "
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
I go back to this article regularly
https://misfitsarchitecture.com/2013/09/29/architectural-myths-8-clean-lines/ since it's pretty applicable to Apple's design issues.
