You seem the 2012 form factor, the one people were going nuts on here had been the same for too long and didn't count any of the significant updates as updates because the form factor hadn't changed...
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.
Phil Schiller Says 32GB RAM on New MacBook Pro Would Have Required Battery Compromising Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macbook pro mbp phill schiller
- Sort by reaction score
You seem the 2012 form factor, the one people were going nuts on here had been the same for too long and didn't count any of the significant updates as updates because the form factor hadn't changed...
What Phil means to say is that in order to make the "Pro" laptop more "PRO," it would have to stop with its childish form over function THIN IS BETTER theme. In this case, THIN IS A FOUR LETTER WORD. So Phil get your head out of...and ...
[
There's nothing more holier-than-thou-whiny than someone whining about people who, in his opinion, are whining about something.
There's nothing more holier-than-thou-whiny than someone whining about people who, in his opinion, are whining about something.
I actually don't see a proper comparison in there. Aren't they just comparing DDR4 setups to other DDR4 setups? The more interesting comparison would be LPDDR3 to DDR4 in standby mode.
I believe LPDDR3 uses approximately 10% of the power that DDR4 uses when in standby, which significantly reduces the possible sleep time. RAM is the most power hungry component when sleeping.
That's the thing, they're using high power RAM and finding negligible power drain.
It's hard to believe that low power RAM would see higher margins of power drain.
Obviously there's no way to test apples implementation since there is no 32 go option and we have to take Schiller word for it.
But the logic LTT uses can be used to theory craft that schillers explanation doesn't really add up.
I believe it's an oversight by Apple. That's all. No intention of harm, or maliciousness, they just didn't think about and decide to spin the answer.
If there's one big thing Apple has always done well is spin. I think schillers apparent surprise about the negativity towards the new MbP is an indication that the top guys at Apple are becoming disconnected with the industry that they try to cater to.
They're building devices to meet what they want, not what the industry wants.
I know geekbench is hardly the last word benchmark, but the new 2016 15" MBs are outperformed by the top-end 2015 MBP: 13935 for the 2.8 GHz Mid-2015; 13318 for the 2.9 GHz Late 2016 (which is effectively identical to the 13317 scored by the 2.5 GHz Mid-2015).
Last edited:
It actually adds up really well. Apple has been using LPDDR3 in their laptops for a long time now, and it makes a big difference to sleep power draw especially. With desktop DDR4 ram you could have 30% battery left, leave your computer sleeping for two days and then have a depleted battery, which also puts a lot of strain in the poor glued-in cells.
Macdaddy has a brilliant article on the subject, it made me change my opinion on this matter entirely.
https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pro-limited-16gb-ram/
But I don't understand why Apple don't just implement full hibernation after 1-2 h of sleep instead?
Surely then there is ZERO power drain. Given the speed of the SSDs in these machines, reading from the sleep file would take only a few seconds to repopulate the active RAM component - and only 10 seconds for the full - proposed - 32GB.
I recognise the benefit of instant wake if you are in the process of opening/shutting your laptop, but for overnight stints or when in storage/travelling, why not just hibernate instead? The battery will last pretty much indefinitely in such a state.
Read the article. The power saving between using 16GB LPDDR3 or DDR4 is in the range of 1.5-3.5W when powered on. With 32GB of DDR4, you'd have a power draw likely around 3-7W more than a 16GB LPDDR3 system. During normal light use, the 2016 MBP uses 7.6W right now, considering battery capacity and claimed battery life. Adding 3-7W to that would eat away anywhere between 2.5-4.5h of your battery life. That's not so cool, in my book.
Last edited:
For me it was iOS 7 in 2013.
Check out music production apps. They're where the real interesting development is on iPads.
As for software stagnation... It's been, and for decades. Now that CPU speeds are stagnating, you'd think we would start to see more software optimization, but no, not really. At least, not from the companies that most need it (I'm looking at you, Adobe). Apple's own stuff started suffering after 2009, and went critical when they trashed iWork and replaced it with a feature-gutted iOS port. Some 3rd party software, built from the ground up (such as challengers to Adobe) have been interesting, but they're facing feature catch-up lag. Who knows how bloated they'll be themselves when/if they catch up in the bulk of desired features.
The iPad Pro is a great hobby music production device and decent for word processing/communications (especially considering the weight, silence, and lack of heat). It's brilliant for Internet consumption.
This is a key point of evidence for the argument that Apple is building computers only for their own executives (people who don't do heavy computing and who have other people do the heavy lifting for them). These people are so isolated from the real world and that isolation leads to ignorance. The worst part is that an executive is far more like an end consumer than a power user, so power users get screwed all the more because they're invisible to the people making the decisions.
I've spent most of my computing life on PC and Windows machines. I've built them and supported them. As a result, I DESPISE them. I will never return to them unless they go through an extraordinary transformation. At this point, my options are:
1. Cope with whatever BS Apple puts out.
2. Abandon computers entirely.
The one that costs the least will sell more. The problem is not in which product sells the most. The problem is in Apple executives becoming a bunch of tonerheads.
They've fallen prey to the stupefying obsession with profit margins and stock prices. They are ruled by ignorant and clueless shareholders, not by any mission.
To look at it from the bright side: This should force the software engineers to write their code in an efficient way, so to ensure that 16GB RAM is enough for years to come, prolonging the life of my 15" Pro (2014)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :-D
Almost every developer/software company produces their product with the arrogant notion that their product will be the only software the user is running, sucking up every bit of RAM and CPU possible. Most big products waste resources on bundling components that encourage buying into paid services, installing anti-pirating garbage that only hurts legit users, and unnecessary convenience tools like system services and task bar notification icons. The Windows platform and most software built for it is the absolute best example of this.
Apple has been dogging Mac OS by adding more and more iCloud and iOS interaction features and system services. Snow Leopard was incredible efficiency and we haven't seen its like in almost a decade.
Exactly. The whole POINT of Macs is reliability and compatibility without constantly geeking the hell out of it. It's supposed to be a tool, not a geek project. There's no sense in turning Mac OS into a better looking flaky PC operating system.
Not the more recent ones, no. They're disposable and Apple shareholders want it that way. Even the older ones from just a few years back have had suicidal components. Losing an expensive tool to design stupidity is painful for anyone, but it's really bad on poor people who can't afford to buy the same thing, over and over, every two to three years. This is why I've not bought anything to replace my old PC and my two MacBook Pros (the PC is outdated and horribly frustrating, one Mac has died of GPU defect, and the other is a 2009 model that Apple decided isn't worth supporting Mac OS on any more). If Apple put out a complete desktop solution, a non-suicidal computer without laptop-sized parts, I'd spend my last bit of savings on it to get back into photography. I've been waiting over five years. The 2013 Mac Pro looked like it was the way to go until I saw the price tag and that Apple never bothered to put out a Retina display for it. Now it's outdated and abandoned, so I'm not putting money on that. These laptops keep getting less longevity and demanding more adapters be bought. Screw that.
Why would they make such a thing? Apple has abandoned the desktop computer.
Even if they prove my last statement wrong sometime next year, who wants to spend $350+ on a keyboard?
Logic Pro user here. Plus everything I said above about hating Windows and PC garbage with a fiery passion. The sad fact is that when you are a user that cares about the overall user experience more than anything, Apple is still far less painful than Windows and PC hardware voodoo. This is why trashing iOS in 2013 with iOS 7 didn't stop me buying an iPhone 6s to replace my iPhone 4. The alternative is still even worse.
Apple used to make workstation class AND server class computers. They just decided they didn't like the profit margins on those after the iPhone gave them a taste of mainstream success. The iPhone turned Apple into a monstrously successful company... but might also kill the company due to the myopic stupidity that the mainstream success brought to the company's leadership.
Thank you for making a compelling argument against public ownership.
I've been wondering this very question the whole time I've been reading people excusing Apple over battery time. I've never gotten real work done on battery power unless it was only word processing. Internet consumption is okay on battery unless you're watching videos. The rest of my productivity is in Logic Pro, Photoshop, Painter, etc... Which eats through battery super fast, especially if powering an external drive for storage (or booting Snow Leopard, which runs better on a 7200 rpm USB 2.0 drive than Mavericks runs on an internal drive), plus plugging in and powering a USB hub and a Wacom tablet or MIDI controller... Etc. Most of us are probably buying laptops more for their portability than their ability to run without a power outlet.
Last edited:
Having said that, would you still consider buying the new MacBook Pro if it offered 32GB of DDR4, but went from 10 to say, 6 hours of claimed battery capacity?
Or in real life, outside of battery measurement labs, from 6 to 3.5 hours?
Easy choice: Option 2, but the 13" version. However, the price has to come down a bit more. Still too expensive. MacBook Pro 2016 is a No Buy.
While waiting for the price (of the 2015 MBP) to come down, I am also looking at the HP Spectre x360. Fully loaded still cheaper than the new MacBook Pro.
Last edited:
I'm getting one, they are gonna have a mid life update soon
Awesome, enjoy my friend!
It's a tough call, and everyone is different.
I can tell you, I would. I do need to be "portable", but I'mnot often away from power.
This week for example, I'm overseas at a client site, doing a database and software upgrade. I'm at a temporary desk. It has power and 3 hours real battery would be enough.
But 32 gb of RAM would have likely cut the time to do my work in 1/2, and I'm getting tired and grumpy and wish I could be done and go home already.
So I'm someone who absolutely would be willing for a reasonable buttery hit if it meant such performance improvements
Yes, I would. Except in reality, the battery difference would be negligible, so those battery life comparisons are absolutely ridiculous. Double the RAM wouldn't halve the battery life in any situation.
I understand your point. Battery life on a laptop whilst being used is important. I was specifically arguing against the notion that the choice of LPDD3 was to increase standby time. It does, but it seems to me there is no reason to use standby mode - just use hibernation instead.
Anyway, in terms of during use, why not have the system intelligently designed so that one of the RAM modules can be (optionally) disabled during battery use - to reduce power draw? 32GB machines would drop to 16GB, and 16GB machines would drop to 8GB. Still more power hungry than LPDDR3, but in any case, I think this discussion really misses the point:
As soon as you start doing some serious computation work on any laptop (like exporting/processing images, or running simulations for example) the battery life drops like a stone. My 2011 Macbook pro drops from about 8-10 hours predicted when I am word processing with the screen dimmed to under 2 hours if running lots of intensive, multicore R-scripts.
Thus, the power draw from the RAM itself becomes negligible, and the user will always have to plug in pretty soon anyway.
my 2009 laptop has 32 GB RAM, where's Apple courage when you need it
In any case, the real fact is that not that many people are willing to do the tradeoff of memory vs battery life. As a software developer, I consider myself to be a power user as well, but the times I *really* need more than 16GB are extremely rare. In 99% of occasions, I get by just fine with 16GB.
Most of the time, I'm looking at a code editor, editing code. Occasionally compiling and linking that code. For my usage situation, going to 32GB of DDR4 with the tradeoff in battery life just would not be worth it. And I suppose that would be the same for at least 90% of other "professionals" out there. To add another vector of internal design, battery layout etc, to cater for that 10% market, would not make any sense for Apple.
32GB RAM for some database work btw, are you loading the whole database into RAM at once? Why would you do such a thing?
^ I find this thread really funny.
Whenever somebody is asking for buying advice, everybody goes how you should definitely max out machine and go with 16GB. Years down the line where we expected Apple to upper that RAM limit, people say don't worry, all fine, who needs more than 16GB anyway...
Whenever somebody is asking for buying advice, everybody goes how you should definitely max out machine and go with 16GB. Years down the line where we expected Apple to upper that RAM limit, people say don't worry, all fine, who needs more than 16GB anyway...
It would not be negligible. DDR4 (or DDR3) RAM needs considerably more power than LP dito. That's why Apple has been using LP RAM for a long time now. And the Macbook Pro's have been selling like hotcakes, I guess they got something right with their tradeoffs?
I also believe LPDDR3 RAM can only be soldered btw - not viable for SODIMM packaging. So that's the explanation for why RAM is soldered these days.