Phil Schiller Says 32GB RAM on New MacBook Pro Would Have Required Battery Compromising Design

[LordVic]

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?

out database platform is extreme IO limited and bound. There are many routines I need to do for DB maintenance that can benefit from loading large portions of it into RAM. For example, if I want to do table moves from database extent to database extent, doing so directly on Disk can be quite time consuming. A trick I've learned is to ready everything into RAM, perform my DB operations within RAM, then write to disk, to prevent simultaneous read and write IO.

using this method i've managed to get some of my routines down from hours to minutes.

 

[StayPuft]

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.

I'm referring to 16 GB of LPDDR3 vs 32 GB of LPDDR3. The difference in power consumption to have included a 32 GB option is negligible.

 

[Pike R. Alpha]

Ben Slaney wrote an article which highlighted a key reason the new MacBook Pro is limited to 16GB of RAM, a reason most missed.

Here is the article for those that are interested in reading it in it's entirety: https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pro-limited-16gb-ram

Phil read the article and has clarified a couple points.

https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pro-limited-16gb-ram/#update

Now check the Intel datasheet and note that the used Intel processors support: DDR4-2133, LPDDR3-1866, DDR3L-1600 (up to 64GB with two memory modules).
Implying that Apple is in fact using DDR4 memory (for 2133MHz). Otherwise it would have been limited to 1866MHz. But then again Phil said that Apple would have to use desktop-grade DDR4 memory. Surprise surprise...

The 13-inch ESC version comes standard with 8GB (2 x H9CCNNNBJTMLAR-NUD).

 

[zhenya]

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:

So, uh, what would happen if someone was working on power and suddenly pulled the power cord? Major data loss and system crash?

 

[Spectrum]

So, uh, what would happen if someone was working on power and suddenly pulled the power cord? Major data loss and system crash?

Come on! The software could easily figure that out.

A possible solution could be a swap to disk of one (or both) of the RAM chips, then a swap back to RAM (one chip only) of the relevant active data.
From that point the system behaves as a single DRAM system.

(Note I'm not a software engineer, Apple is. The are they ones that should be creative with their "innovative" solutions).

To be honest, though, I doubt there are really massive savings to be made from doing this. Much easier (cheaper) for Apple to simply limit the system to 16GB of LPDDR RAM. Which is exactly what they did.

NOTE: I'm actually - personally - less bothered by the 16GB RAM cap, than by the choice not to use an industry standard, compact, M.2 SSD connector, crappy keyboad (in my opinion the MacBook is not as good as the old style), loss of MagSafe, loss of SD card reader, and no USB A ports.

Selling a computer with 4 expansion ports, where none of them are USB-A just seems bonkers to me!

Questions:
1) How many people need to plug in 4 USB-C devices?
2) How many people need to plug in *at least one* USB-A device?

 

[zhenya]

Come on! The software could easily figure that out.

A possible solution could be a swap to disk of one (or both) of the RAM chips, then a swap back to RAM (one chip only) of the relevant active data.
From that point the system behaves as a single DRAM system.

(Note I'm not a software engineer, Apple is. The are they ones that should be creative with their "innovative" solutions).

To be honest, though, I doubt there are really massive savings to be made from doing this. Much easier (cheaper) for Apple to simply limit the system to 16GB of LPDDR RAM. Which is exactly what they did.

NOTE: I'm actually - personally - less bothered by the 16GB RAM cap, than by the choice not to use an industry standard, compact, M.2 SSD connector, crappy keyboad (in my opinion the MacBook is not as good as the old style), loss of MagSafe, and no USB A ports.

Yeah, no.

The whole point of RAM is that it is considerably faster than disk. You can't swap as fast as memory contents change.

 

[azeteg]

I'm referring to 16 GB of LPDDR3 vs 32 GB of LPDDR3. The difference in power consumption to have included a 32 GB option is negligible.

Yes, it would be negligible. The whole point here though, is that the CPU doesn't support more than 16GB of LPDDR3. In order to go to 32GB, they would have to switch to DDR4.

 

[Spectrum]

Yeah, no.

The whole point of RAM is that it is considerably faster than disk. You can't swap as fast as memory contents change.

Of course. But, you would only need to do the swap to disk once. i.e. At the moment you are changing from 2x16 GB RAM to 1x16 GB RAM (or from 2x8GB to 1x8 GB).

It's just a hypothetical idea...

 

[zhenya]

Of course. But, you would only need to do the swap to disk once. i.e. At the moment you are changing from 2x16 GB RAM to 1x16 GB RAM (or from 2x8GB to 1x8 GB).

It's just a hypothetical idea...

But a power interruption is immediate. How would the computer know that power was about to be cut?

 

[Spectrum]

But a power interruption is immediate. How would the computer know that power was about to be cut?

I really don't understand what you are talking about. The idea I was floating was that when plugged in both RAM chips are active. But when on battery, the system *intelligently* swaps the contents of one RAM stick to disk then powers it down.
I'm not talking about a sudden power loss, and this would all be controlled by software to prevent any errors or data loss.

 

[Workerbee Redux]

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.

Right, you don't work in data science or machine learning or develop data hungry applications. Got it.

Now could you move over or back up your 90% claim?

 

[azeteg]

Right, you don't work in data science or machine learning or develop data hungry applications. Got it.

Now could you move over or back up your 90% claim?

Sometimes I need more than 16GB RAM, and then I use my workstation. Or a Linux/Windows/Mac development server over a terminal, or Remote Desktop. I'm just saying, the amount of times I feel limited by the 16GB on the road, are few. The tradeoff for much lower battery life vs 32GB of desktop RAM makes no sense for me.

The 90% claim has no backup whatsoever, it is just an estimation based on my experience.

I guess Apple has done the research on this though, they are afterall the highest valued company ever in the history of mankind.

The battery life claims have scientific backup however, based on RAM manufacturers technical documentation.

 

[FM-2030]

What on earth could you possibly be doing where 16GB of RAM is not enough?

I work at a big 3 bank supporting the fixed income trading business and have a hefty work rig (32gb ram, core i7, SSD, 6 monitors, etc).

I have multiple applications open that are resource and ram intensive, from multiple trading platforms, Bloomberg application, java intense applications, outlook, tons of massive excel docs (with macros) all open at the same time. The highest I've ever seen my RAM usage hit is 13GB. I would never expect a laptop to be able to run all of this at once, nor would I want or need to.

I'm curious as to what you do or use a laptop for where 16GB of RAM is not sufficient. If anything, I find that there are bottlenecks such as shared Microsoft application resources, where excel would lockup access and outlook, which become problems long before reaching double digits of RAM usage.

How about video and audio production by only purchasing 1 Apple computer instead of a desktop (for work) and a laptop for play...
[doublepost=1480035857][/doublepost]

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?

Why not, just take an external battery pack if you want the extra hours...easy

 

[EliasM]

Or, they could have made it slightly thicker and have battery life with 32GB of RAM.

Form over function indeed.

Yes, that's right. 32GB would have required a design-compromising battery, not the other way round. Which is probably fine for most pro users.

 

[R.P.G]

noob question...

when other laptops can use 32GB, why not Macs? is this OS level roadblock or its just apple doenst want it. Not able to understand the logic here.

 

[Juicy Box]

noob question...

when other laptops can use 32GB, why not Macs? is this OS level roadblock or its just apple doenst want it. Not able to understand the logic here.

I forget the exact RAM limitations of the Mac OS, I am sure one could find it using a interweb search, but I think it is something crazy high, like 16 billion GBs.

So, to answer your question, it is not an OS related limitation. It is a design limitation. Apple's obsession with everything thin (except their margins) really shows in the new MBP. If they would have made it a little thicker, they probably would have been able to have the 32GBs of RAM and a decent amount of battery life.

The article pretty much explains it, without mentioning Apple's thinness obsession.
[doublepost=1480079154][/doublepost]

Yes, that's right. 32GB would have required a design-compromising battery, not the other way round.

I guess it depends on how you defined PRO. If you are an accountant, then yes, even 16GBs might be overkill.

I personally define it differently when talking about Macs. I always thought that Pro = creative professional, ones that could take advantage of the higher amounts of RAM.

I think that a pro machine shouldn't make these kind of compromises, and shouldn't be form over function. That is what the non-pro machines would be for. If the new MBP was called MB, you wouldn't hear a peep from me.

Which is probably fine for most pro users.

So, you are correct with one exception imo. 16GBs is fine for most users, but maybe not most Pro users.

 

[MrNomNoms]

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.

And IIRC wasn't the issue regarding the memory controller rather than just the amount of memory itself? Apple wanted to use a low powered memory controller and that is limited amount of memory support but if Apple wanted to have more memory they had to move to a more power consuming memory controller? that was my understanding of it for what it is worth.

 

[phrehdd]

There is no trade off for battery life and RAM amount UNLESS Apple keeps insisting that THIN is the most important feature above everything else. This is all bs when it comes to talking trade off. Other laptops can do it and so can Apple but they elect/chose/decide not to and that is all.

Professionals, hobbyists, perhaps gamers all can take advantage of more RAM. Perhaps future web browsers will better exploit RAM for security reasons ... Apple has no valid reason and never did ...it is all excuses to match THIN in build and FAT in profits.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

I think most people here are just concerned with the naming of the laptop being called a Pro. Maybe if it's called MacBook S they'd go away.

What you guys need is a 17". If you don't care about weight, and the laptop stays on the desk near an outlet more than in your briefcase/plane tray, you are looking at a 17"

You are asking the wrong question by wondering why Apple doesn't do 32GB on the 13/15 MBP. You should be asking when Apple will start making the 17" again.

As there are plenty that wants 32GB in the 13/15 MBP, there's probably 10x more that wants the battery life it has now in a thin and light package. And the sale data proves me correct.

Show Apple that there's a worthwhile market for a 17" wall hugger with the max RAM and fast GPU you all want.

 

[iLilana]

Dear Phil, I will not be buying a macbook pro. It won't make a bit of difference to apple that they lost a purchase because performance is rated lower than design. Suddenly I feel like V-ram is going to make a come back.

 

[phrehdd]

I think most people here are just concerned with the naming of the laptop being called a Pro. Maybe if it's called MacBook S they'd go away.

What you guys need is a 17". If you don't care about weight, and the laptop stays on the desk near an outlet more than in your briefcase/plane tray, you are looking at a 17"

You are asking the wrong question by wondering why Apple doesn't do 32GB on the 13/15 MBP. You should be asking when Apple will start making the 17" again.

As there are plenty that wants 32GB in the 13/15 MBP, there's probably 10x more that wants the battery life it has now in a thin and light package. And the sale data proves me correct.

Show Apple that there's a worthwhile market for a 17" wall hugger with the max RAM and fast GPU you all want.

"And the sale data proves me correct." What sale data? There are not 32gb RAM MBP to make your statement of sale. - I don't mean to be rude but your statement is just plain silly. The reality is that Apple tells people what they want. They got rid of the optical disc for a couple of reasons yet, for 2 years straight various small polls shows people wanted the optical disc and were even willing to purchase it as an accessory. Also, there are plenty (like myself) who are tired of Apple's THIN IS GOOD FOR EVERYTHING mentality and even worse are those that advocate this drivel because Apple's product line are the end all of what is good and right in the world.

 

[villicodelirant]

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.

I'm sorry, but I consider this as far from reality as possible.
You seem to be talking about an assembled PC from 1998 running a cracked copy of Windows ME.

Windows is not "crap", there is no "voodoo" involved in buying a laptop from Dell.
You buy it, plug it in and get work done. It's that easy.
Certainly there is no "hardware voodoo" involved since XPS 13's are sealed and not user serviceable, just like the rMBP.

And to be completely frank, I don't think the "overall user experience" should matter to a professional, just the ROI.
If the machine lets you get more work done faster for less money, it's better by definition, even if it's ugly and clearly designed by a bunch of monkeys with no taste.

I fully see how, if you are dependent on a particular Mac-only software stack - or are just very very used to a certain environment, you are basically stuck with it.

This doesn't mean the alternative is "garbage".

The entire planet buys truckloads of Windows laptops from Dell every year and reports a positive fiscal year nevertheless, so either you are wrong, or they are all ignoring an easy opportunity to make much more money, which I don't think is the case.

 

[Rob_2811]

I'm sorry, but I consider this as far from reality as possible.
You seem to be talking about an assembled PC from 1998 running a cracked copy of Windows ME.

Windows is not "crap", there is no "voodoo" involved in buying a laptop from Dell.
You buy it, plug it in and get work done. It's that easy.
Certainly there is no "hardware voodoo" involved since XPS 13's are sealed and not user serviceable, just like the rMBP.

And to be completely frank, I don't think the "overall user experience" should matter to a professional, just the ROI.
If the machine lets you get more work done faster for less money, it's better by definition, even if it's ugly and clearly designed by a bunch of monkeys with no taste.

I fully see how, if you are dependent on a particular Mac-only software stack - or are just very very used to a certain environment, you are basically stuck with it.

This doesn't mean the alternative is "garbage".

The entire planet buys truckloads of Windows laptops from Dell every year and reports a positive fiscal year nevertheless, so either you are wrong, or they are all ignoring an easy opportunity to make much more money, which I don't think is the case.

Yeah, have to say I find this attitude a bit peculiar. Windows 8/8.1 was a mess but 10 is perfectly usable. The user experience line might have been true at one time but we live in a time of no heaphone jacks and drowning in a sea of dongles to use Apple devices these days.

On a related note I chatted Apple support the other day to advise them that my two month old lightning EarPods were already playing up. They asked me to test them using another device ,presumably from the bag full of iOS devices I carry around because the clowns are using a proprietary headphone connector.. , I couldn't even plug them into the MacBook I was using to contact them on.

The good old Apple user experience eh? What a mess..

 

[BiscottiGelato]

"And the sale data proves me correct." What sale data? There are not 32gb RAM MBP to make your statement of sale. - I don't mean to be rude but your statement is just plain silly. The reality is that Apple tells people what they want. They got rid of the optical disc for a couple of reasons yet, for 2 years straight various small polls shows people wanted the optical disc and were even willing to purchase it as an accessory. Also, there are plenty (like myself) who are tired of Apple's THIN IS GOOD FOR EVERYTHING mentality and even worse are those that advocate this drivel because Apple's product line are the end all of what is good and right in the world.

Sales data as in the current thin and light MBP is selling like hot cakes.

And no, count me as one that did not miss the Optical Disc one damn bit. What a dumb idea to carry another 2mm and 9oz for the 2 times a year I used a DVD 5 years ago. For the minority that uses it on a daily basis they can buy an optical drive. Count my CD/DVD usage to more like once every 2 years now.

Same with 32GB. Plenty want thin and light and great battery over 32GB and these people are voting with their wallet instead of just bitching on a forum.
[doublepost=1480387842][/doublepost]

Yeah, have to say I find this attitude a bit peculiar. Windows 8/8.1 was a mess but 10 is perfectly usable. The user experience line might have been true at one time but we live in a time of no heaphone jacks and drowning in a sea of dongles to use Apple devices these days.

On a related note I chatted Apple support the other day to advise them that my two month old lightning EarPods were already playing up. They asked me to test them using another device ,presumably from the bag full of iOS devices I carry around because the clowns are using a proprietary headphone connector.. , I couldn't even plug them into the MacBook I was using to contact them on.

The good old Apple user experience eh? What a mess..

This I agree. Lightning headphones is much more of a mess than this 32GB essentially Intel issue. On the iPhone 7, it's not like battery drastically increased or the device became much smaller and lighter by having the headset removed. They could've delayed it until iPhone 8 so there's a wholesale form factor change so that at least we see what the real upside is for having the headphone jack removed.

Or at least throw in a free pair of super cheap Bluetooth headset.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

If you don't use your computer for over a week regularly, you are no Pro user. Or an unemployed Pro user.

Pro's - like artisans - use their tools to build and craft.

No. I use my iPad for most of my home email and browsing. Just the way I do things.

And since my work involves developing WINDOWS Application Software, and my work provides me a laptop for that purpose, I simply end up not using my MBP that much.

If I had a job (or a hobby) writing macOS or iOS applications, or if I didn't have an iPad and iPhone, I would undoubtedly be using my MBP every day, but that's just not the case right now. So my poor MBP sits on the table, somewhat neglected, for days and days.