The next MacBook Pro redesign (merged)

[OSX7]

It's not ridiculous, I don't need to dGPU in my MacBook Pro, although it would be a 'nice to have' configurable option.

For my uses, all the dGPU would do is make my machine run much hotter and have a significant impact on battery life. Until NVIDIA can make their GPU's far more energy efficient they are going to have a very hard time convincing vendors to include them in ultrabooks/slim & light machines over integrated solutions (which are actually very good these days).

Totally agree with you. By now it's obvious that they are removing the dGPU:
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...inc-might-drop-advanced-micro-devices-in.aspx
Look at the iMac 4k and entry level 15" model, these used to include a dGPU by default but no longer do. Only the 15" has an option with a dGPU but was relegated only to the high end model in 2013.

On another note responding to Lexdexia, I'm sick of hearing "this will not be a PRO level notebook if it doesn't have a dGPU". Newsflash, PRO at the end of the product name just means that it's better than something in the rest of the lineup. Think iPad Air < iPad Pro, Macbook Air <Macbook Pro, Mac Mini<Mac Pro. Having bought a PRO notebook doesn't mean that you will do or enable you to do "pro" level work (something that is highly subjective, my PhD Biology professor editing a document and researching is as "pro" as as an engineer using CAD, regardless of a cheaper machine serving my professor just as well). Plus when you go out into the real world there are all of these people buying the rMBP 13 just to use Facebook and social media. I like to call the rMBP the "glorified Facebook at Starbucks machine". dGPU or not, people keep editing photos and videos on the Iris Pro only models and the world hasn't fallen apart. I usually hear these complaints of not having a dGPU from people that solely buy this product to have a beautiful laptop and game on it (I'm not talking about casual gaming, I'm talking about AAA stuff at 60fps) and as we all know in the notebook world, beautiful doesn't equal performance specially from a machine that's has never been marketed as a gaming laptop.

 

[GreatUsername]

Apple seems like it's deliberately falling back on Mac performance, and I'm not sure if I like the move.

An iGPU will surely offer enough power for most users, including myself, and iGPUs are starting to get powerful enough to compete with dGPUs in current Macs. But the thing is, when people talk about dGPUs in Macs, it's always about the R9 M390X or GTX 780MX. What about the GTX 980? The 980 is significantly more powerful than any dGPU in Macs currently and any possible iGPU in the near-future. Nvidia's made the full desktop class 980 able to fit into a gaming laptop, so surely a 980MX could fit into a thinner rMBP. And let's not forget about Nvidia's Pascal chipset next year. And all this doesn't just apply to MacBooks, the iMac has been falling behind too.

Back in 2012, Apple was shipping GTX 680s with their Macs, the same series of chips going into desktop graphics cards. Now, Apple is a generation behind because AMD is a generation behind and they're preparing to purposefully fall back even more.

I respect what they're doing, and it makes sense for cost reasons and limits design and engineering restrictions without making a worse product for 90% of their customers, but Apples Pro machines are slowing down from a benchmark standpoint.

I'm glad I built a gaming PC when I did, because gaming and demanding 3D modeling on a Mac is going to get harder and harder. The only ace in the hole I see is if external Thunderbolt 3 GPUs become popular.

 

[OSX7]

Apple seems like it's deliberately falling back on Mac performance, and I'm not sure if I like the move.

An iGPU will surely offer enough power for most users, including myself, and iGPUs are starting to get powerful enough to compete with dGPUs in current Macs. But the thing is, when people talk about dGPUs in Macs, it's always about the R9 M390X or GTX 780MX. What about the GTX 980? The 980 is significantly more powerful than any dGPU in Macs currently and any possible iGPU in the near-future. Nvidia's made the full desktop class 980 able to fit into a gaming laptop, so surely a 980MX could fit into a thinner rMBP. And let's not forget about Nvidia's Pascal chipset next year. And all this doesn't just apply to MacBooks, the iMac has been falling behind too.

There's a problem with what you are posing. Apple has never used a high end dGPU in their rMBP (>650,750) only mid range cards (650, 750, m370x) because that's what the current cooling system, PSU, and the casing can handle. Thinning it down, which is what they will do will only aggravate the issue. Current dGPU rMBPs have throttling issues, this forum is plagued by such posts. They are not only thermally constrained but also power constrained. These midrange dGPU have a 45~50W TDP while the card you are speaking of has a TDP of 122W. An insane difference between the two. That mobile 980 you are referring two was only fitted on laptops with a thickness greater than one inch and that weight several pounds because of their powerful cooling solutions. There's even one that has to be attached to a giant water cooler. Finally there's a difference right now in philosophy between Apple /AMD and Nvidia. Nvidia seems to be pushing their CUDA framework at the expense of forfeiting the latest OpenCL standards. Apple as we all know relies heavily on OpenCL and that's why they have gotten in bed with AMD, to the point of supplying them with exclusive (at least temporarily) dGPUs. Also Maxwell 800-900 series architecture is serialised one and did away with many FP64 units important for scientific applications that require double precision calculations just to lower down their power consumption. This serialisation is what benefits Nvidia with DX11 games, a serial API. GCN is a highly paralleled architecture optimised for paralleled APIs. That's the reason why you will never see a 900 series nvidia card (they are heavily optimised for gaming) not now nor never in a Mac. I have heard that Pascal improves on Maxwells mishaps but I still suspect the current M370X is the last dGPU we will ever see on a rMBP.

 

[Lexdexia]

It's not ridiculous, I don't need a dGPU in my MacBook Pro, although it would be a 'nice to have' configurable option.

For my uses, all the dGPU would do is make my machine run much hotter and have a significant impact on battery life. Until NVIDIA can make their GPU's far more energy efficient they are going to have a very hard time convincing vendors to include them in ultrabooks/slim & light machines over integrated solutions (which are actually very good these days).

That's the common misconception between iGPU and dGPU. The argument that a dGPU would make the laptop run hotter and negatively impact battery life doesn't live up to its claims. I own a 15-inch Mid 2015 MacBook Pro with the AMD dGPU, from all my months of usage I've never found the MBP to run hotter than my dad's 13 inch MBA, which has an iGPU. As for battery life, Apple has automatic graphics switching that's enabled by default. It uses the iGPU for basic stuff and switches on the AMD dGPU for heavier work, such as: CAD and gaming. Battery life is obviously shorter when you're doing pro work that involve the dGPU while on battery power. However, the battery life is also short for MBPs with iGPU when doing the equal amount of high performance tasks. For comparison's sake, let's just say I'm running AutoCAD or playing games on a MBP with dGPU vs. a MBP with iGPU. The iGPU MBP will definitely squeeze a bit more battery life simply because the iGPU has less power draw, but the performance it can offer is far behind the dGPU. The performance gains from having a dGPU at your disposal for high performance work is always worth the trade-off of having slightly shorter battery life (while on doing demanding work on battery power). Not to mention all iGPUs are terrible for gaming.

At the end of the day, it boils down to what you might wanna do with your computer. Since I often use PS and CAD and sometimes play games, I would never consider getting a computer without a dGPU.

 

[Steve121178]

I own a 15-inch Mid 2015 MacBook Pro with the AMD dGPU, from all my months of usage I've never found the MBP to run hotter than my dad's 13 inch MBA

The cooling and heat dispersion on the 15" is in a different world to that of a slim & light machine which is why you haven't noticed much of a difference. There's two powerfully efficient fans & a far larger footprint to disperse the hot air.

I'm actually typing this on my old 2010 Vaio Z which has a discrete GPU and the heat coming out the exhaust on this thin & light machine literally burns my finger if I hold it close to the vent for more than 10 seconds, not to mention the fan sounds like a Chinook trying to take off in a gale force wind.

 

[terminator-jq]

Note that the current 13" and 15" screens are actually 13.3" and 15.4", so they are there already. I'm hoping that Apple releases a 14" rMB, a 14" rMBP, and 16" rMBP.

We'll never again see dGPU's in the 13". Would be nice if they at least had a discrete option for the high end 13" model though.

Wow I didn't realize that. In that case, I hope Apple just bumps them up to 14" and 16" while keeping the same case size. Thinner bezels all around would make a much nicer look. As for the screen tech, I take back my comment about OLED. After doing some research, OLED in its current stage is much more expensive to manufacture and doesn't last as long as LCD. On the flip side, if Apple used IGZO LCD, they would be able to make the case even thinner and improve battery life.

The laptop market has certainly changed sense Apple first introduced the retina Macbook Pro. Hopefully this next generation can put Apple back ahead of the game in terms of performance, battery life, screen tech (please have 10 bit and DCI-P3 color gamut) and style.

 

[GreatUsername]

Am I the only one desperately hoping that the next MBP has a glowing Apple logo?

I would've bought the MB day one if it wasn't for the fact that it 1) was a bit underpowered for my uses and 2) had no glowing Apple logo. If it were just one of those two issues, I'd probably be typing this on a MB, not an iPad. (I actually don't care about the lack of ports on the MB. I'd miss MagSafe, but one port is so much cleaner. It'd be nice if it were also a TB3 port, but the technology just wasn't there yet.)

I know complaining about the lack of a glowing Apple logo may be the most arrogant thing, but I feel like it's really nice. It's like an Apple trademark and literally no other PC maker has been able to pull off a laptop with a good glowing logo ("Acer" just doesn't have the same pizzas in neon as ). Though gaming laptops sometimes have alright glowing logos like Razer, MSI, and Alienware, but they just aren't as good for stickers, which I was just getting to...

Plus, I love the stickers you can put on glowing Apple logos. Didn't they release that "Stickers" commercial for the MBA just last year? I want to get one of Avatar Aang so his eyes and arrow glows. That simply won't work with a black glossy logo. Same goes for an Iron Man sticker and his glowing chestpiece.

I know that if they change the screen tech like they did for the MB, then the chances are slim. But I just hope that Jony says "Yeah, we can squeeze in a little LED for the . It'll only cost 1% of the battery."

 

[motime61]

Am I the only one desperately hoping that the next MBP has a glowing Apple logo?

I would've bought the MB day one if it wasn't for the fact that it 1) was a bit underpowered for my uses and 2) had no glowing Apple logo. If it were just one of those two issues, I'd probably be typing this on a MB, not an iPad. (I actually don't care about the lack of ports on the MB. I'd miss MagSafe, but one port is so much cleaner. It'd be nice if it were also a TB3 port, but the technology just wasn't there yet.)

I know complaining about the lack of a glowing Apple logo may be the most arrogant thing, but I feel like it's really nice. It's like an Apple trademark and literally no other PC maker has been able to pull off a laptop with a good glowing logo ("Acer" just doesn't have the same pizzas in neon as ). Though gaming laptops sometimes have alright glowing logos like Razer, MSI, and Alienware, but they just aren't as good for stickers, which I was just getting to...

Plus, I love the stickers you can put on glowing Apple logos. Didn't they release that "Stickers" commercial for the MBA just last year? I want to get one of Avatar Aang so his eyes and arrow glows. That simply won't work with a black glossy logo. Same goes for an Iron Man sticker and his glowing chestpiece.

I know that if they change the screen tech like they did for the MB, then the chances are slim. But I just hope that Jony says "Yeah, we can squeeze in a little LED for the . It'll only cost 1% of the battery."

I actually dislike loud company branding on my electronics. I prefer subtle, quieter logos if possible, would be happy with no mention of the brand at all.

I might like the macbook pro as a product, but that still doesn't really make me a fan of Apple (or any other tech giant), I am only really concerned about the overall built quality, performance and aesthetics, a glowing logo at the back doesn't have to be a part of this.

 

[AirdanMR]

Am I the only one desperately hoping that the next MBP has a glowing Apple logo?

I would've bought the MB day one if it wasn't for the fact that it 1) was a bit underpowered for my uses and 2) had no glowing Apple logo. If it were just one of those two issues, I'd probably be typing this on a MB, not an iPad. (I actually don't care about the lack of ports on the MB. I'd miss MagSafe, but one port is so much cleaner. It'd be nice if it were also a TB3 port, but the technology just wasn't there yet.)

I know complaining about the lack of a glowing Apple logo may be the most arrogant thing, but I feel like it's really nice. It's like an Apple trademark and literally no other PC maker has been able to pull off a laptop with a good glowing logo ("Acer" just doesn't have the same pizzas in neon as ). Though gaming laptops sometimes have alright glowing logos like Razer, MSI, and Alienware, but they just aren't as good for stickers, which I was just getting to...

Plus, I love the stickers you can put on glowing Apple logos. Didn't they release that "Stickers" commercial for the MBA just last year? I want to get one of Avatar Aang so his eyes and arrow glows. That simply won't work with a black glossy logo. Same goes for an Iron Man sticker and his glowing chestpiece.

I know that if they change the screen tech like they did for the MB, then the chances are slim. But I just hope that Jony says "Yeah, we can squeeze in a little LED for the . It'll only cost 1% of the battery."

It's perfectly right to like it, but for me, it's more classy / elegant the new logo on the rMB and I hope that they'll go that way with the new rMBP.

Glowing logos are fine for stores when users needs to find a very specific service between an "information chaos" on the street. For a personal machine which you have paid for I find it abussive free advertisment as motime61 said.

 

[doitdada]

I never use the back off my screen, but I would prefer the glowing logo to disappear as it leaks light unto the main side of the monitor in the sun.

 

[doitdada]

This dock would be great to have by your monitors side
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...nderbolt-3-based-external-graphics-solutions/

But it has limitation...
"Intel’s Thunderbolt 3 interface offers 40Gb/s of bandwidth (about 5GB/s), which is dramatically lower than 15.75GB/s provided by a fully-fledged PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot, but which could be enough even for today’s high-end graphics cards in various games that do not require a lot of PCIe bandwidth. Since Thunderbolt 3 uses USB 3.1 type-C connector and is fully compliant with the standard, it can deliver up to 100W of power to any external component, which could be sufficient for some of modern graphics processors."

 

[AirdanMR]

This dock would be great to have by your monitors side
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...nderbolt-3-based-external-graphics-solutions/

But it has limitation...
"Intel’s Thunderbolt 3 interface offers 40Gb/s of bandwidth (about 5GB/s), which is dramatically lower than 15.75GB/s provided by a fully-fledged PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot, but which could be enough even for today’s high-end graphics cards in various games that do not require a lot of PCIe bandwidth. Since Thunderbolt 3 uses USB 3.1 type-C connector and is fully compliant with the standard, it can deliver up to 100W of power to any external component, which could be sufficient for some of modern graphics processors."

It would be nice to know what GPU models top that 5GB/s bandwidth. I think the high end ones don't use all the PCI-E 3.0 bandwidth, but I don't know about TB3.

Macbook charger delivers 85w to the laptop... just the CPU has a 45watts TDP + screen, ports, speakers, etc... so at the end the externals components must be around 30-40watts unless the dock has its own PSU or Apple give us 120W - 150W chargers to take advance of TB3.

 

[doitdada]

Macbook charger delivers 85w to the laptop... just the CPU has a 45watts TDP + screen, ports, speakers, etc... so at the end the externals components must be around 30-40watts unless the dock has its own PSU or Apple give us 120W - 150W chargers to take advance of TB3.

Most docks utilised for use with external monitors have their own PSU. Even my Belkin thunderbolt dock needs an output to function. The examples in the article and in the youtube clip are all using external displays.

 

[GreatUsername]

I actually dislike loud company branding on my electronics. I prefer subtle, quieter logos if possible, would be happy with no mention of the brand at all.

I might like the macbook pro as a product, but that still doesn't really make me a fan of Apple (or any other tech giant), I am only really concerned about the overall built quality, performance and aesthetics, a glowing logo at the back doesn't have to be a part of this.

It's perfectly right to like it, but for me, it's more classy / elegant the new logo on the rMB and I hope that they'll go that way with the new rMBP.

Glowing logos are fine for stores when users needs to find a very specific service between an "information chaos" on the street. For a personal machine which you have paid for I find it abussive free advertisment as motime61 said.

It hardly seems like loud advertising when every laptop in the world already has their manufacturer's seal on it. And at my University, where everyone around you in a 30 foot radius also has a Macbook, you'll hardly look like "that guy" who has the obnoxious glowing Apple laptop.

I never use the back off my screen, but I would prefer the glowing logo to disappear as it leaks light unto the main side of the monitor in the sun.

First actual good reason I've ever heard to get rid of the glowing logo aside from design restrictions involving new display technologies. I've never actually seen light leaking through the screen of a MacBook due to the Apple logo, but I can see it happening sometimes, at least only in bright sunlight.

 

[AirdanMR]

It hardly seems like loud advertising when every laptop in the world already has their manufacturer's seal on it. And at my University, where everyone around you in a 30 foot radius also has a Macbook, you'll hardly look like "that guy" who has the obnoxious glowing Apple laptop.

Like every laptop in the world... but not all of them glows like screaming: Hey look at me! I'm here! Can you see me? No? Let me help you! In fact right now I can only think about Apple, Alienware and HP with glowing logos.

When you have doubts about design decisions take industrial designers as reference, specially from car-automotive design and think that: Would they do it?

I can't imagine a Porsche or Ferrari with the logo glowing at the front. It would not only show arrogance and insecurity from the brand, but also would steal all the attention which should lead to the car-body, which it's beautifull just by itself (just like any Apple product). On the other hand I can imagine what kind of user would buy a porsche and do some tunning on it to make it glow.

Bonus pic:

 

[motime61]

It hardly seems like loud advertising when every laptop in the world already has their manufacturer's seal on it. And at my University, where everyone around you in a 30 foot radius also has a Macbook, you'll hardly look like "that guy" who has the obnoxious glowing Apple laptop.

Everyone has their preferences, no one is going to knock you for liking glowing logos. Personally I really don't see the point, while using the laptop you won't even be able to see it, it really is there for others to see. Especially in low light conditions it just screams brand advertising/loyalty a bit too much. There is a difference between relatively subtle variations of branding and loud ones, and I don't find it very professional either as far as pro line of products are concerned.

 

[GreatUsername]

Like every laptop in the world... but not all of them glows like screaming: Hey look at me! I'm here! Can you see me? No? Let me help you! In fact right now I can only think about Apple, Alienware and HP with glowing logos.

When you have doubts about design decisions take industrial designers as reference, specially from car-automotive design and think that: Would they do it?

I can't imagine a Porsche or Ferrari with the logo glowing at the front. It would not only show arrogance and insecurity from the brand, but also would steal all the attention which should lead to the car-body, which it's beautifull just by itself (just like any Apple product). On the other hand I can imagine what kind of user would buy a porsche and do some tunning on it to make it glow.

Bonus pic:

Your pic illustrates my point exactly. Those MacBooks aren't screaming for attention, because none of them stand out individually in their sea of brethren. In fact, the few PCs I see with no glowing logos simply seem to vanish. And from this distance, the design of the body of the MacBook isn't something noticeable at all, it's just an aluminum slab. The Apple logo is more for recognition from a distance.

Car manufacturers kinda do the same thing, but with headlights. I can spot a Corvette's or Mustang's tail lights a half-mile away. And I'd assume that if the Chevy/Ford logo glowed slightly, it would be hardly noticeable compared to the headlights.

 

[AirdanMR]

Your pic illustrates my point exactly. Those MacBooks aren't screaming for attention, because none of them stand out individually in their sea of brethren. In fact, the few PCs I see with no glowing logos simply seem to vanish. And from this distance, the design of the body of the MacBook isn't something noticeable at all, it's just an aluminum slab. The Apple logo is more for recognition from a distance.

Car manufacturers kinda do the same thing, but with headlights. I can spot a Corvette's or Mustang's tail lights a half-mile away. And I'd assume that if the Chevy/Ford logo glowed slightly, it would be hardly noticeable compared to the headlights.

You can identify the brand even in the top line seats... for me that's agressive advertising. It's not sutile, nor elegant.

Cars headlights are part of the global design of the car, and they are there because there is a need (design), not for aesthetics (decoration). So in this case a proper example would be adding neons down the chasis. Logos are just a sticker to say: you like this product? Contact me and I'll sell it to you, that's marketing.

But I respect that you like it, I just don't like it.

 

[duervo]

Like every laptop in the world... but not all of them glows like screaming: Hey look at me! I'm here! Can you see me? No? Let me help you! In fact right now I can only think about Apple, Alienware and HP with glowing logos.

When you have doubts about design decisions take industrial designers as reference, specially from car-automotive design and think that: Would they do it?

I can't imagine a Porsche or Ferrari with the logo glowing at the front. It would not only show arrogance and insecurity from the brand, but also would steal all the attention which should lead to the car-body, which it's beautifull just by itself (just like any Apple product). On the other hand I can imagine what kind of user would buy a porsche and do some tunning on it to make it glow.

Bonus pic:

Dell used to have lighting effects on the XPS laptops when they first came out. Specifically the 17" ones, with their bright red lighting.

Personally, I don't care either way. With lighting or without, it makes no diff to me, and I'm comfortable enough in my own skin to not let something like that on another person's machine intimidate or bother me in any way.

 

[MegaCell]

This dock would be great to have by your monitors side
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...nderbolt-3-based-external-graphics-solutions/

But it has limitation...
"Intel’s Thunderbolt 3 interface offers 40Gb/s of bandwidth (about 5GB/s), which is dramatically lower than 15.75GB/s provided by a fully-fledged PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot, but which could be enough even for today’s high-end graphics cards in various games that do not require a lot of PCIe bandwidth. Since Thunderbolt 3 uses USB 3.1 type-C connector and is fully compliant with the standard, it can deliver up to 100W of power to any external component, which could be sufficient for some of modern graphics processors."

Real world performance would only drop by about 10% on a high end card such as a GTX 980 over TB3 compared to PCIe 3.0 x16.

 

[OSX7]

Real world performance would only drop by about 10% on a high end card such as a GTX 980 over TB3 compared to PCIe 3.0 x16.

Less than 10% in most cases really. Thunderbolt 3 would be the one that says x4 3.0: 46.7 fps

 

[Val-kyrie]

Anyone else getting impatient waiting for an updated/redesigned rMBP? I love the idea of Dell's Infinity Edge display on a rMBP and HP just released the ZBook Studio Mobile Workstation with Skylake-based Intel Core i7 or Xeon processors, support for up to 32GB of DDR4-2133 ECC RAM, the option for an Nvidia Quadro M1000M, a variety of storage options ranging in size from 128GB SATA SSD all the way up to 2TB, and an optional TB 3.0 dock. All in an ultra-book form factor! I would love to see a new Skylake rMBP in a form factor like this but with 14" and 16" screens in a 13" and 15" ultra-book form factor.

So if HP (and others) can release Skylake notebooks, why can't Apple?

PS--I want my Gigabit ethernet port back! Even this HP ultra-book has one.

 

[satchmo]

Anyone else getting impatient waiting for an updated/redesigned rMBP? I love the idea of Dell's Infinity Edge display on a rMBP and HP just released the ZBook Studio Mobile Workstation with Skylake-based Intel Core i7 or Xeon processors, support for up to 32GB of DDR4-2133 ECC RAM, the option for an Nvidia Quadro M1000M, a variety of storage options ranging in size from 128GB SATA SSD all the way up to 2TB, and an optional TB 3.0 dock. All in an ultra-book form factor! I would love to see a new Skylake rMBP in a form factor like this but with 14" and 16" screens in a 13" and 15" ultra-book form factor.

So if HP (and others) can release Skylake notebooks, why can't Apple?

PS--I want my Gigabit ethernet port back! Even this HP ultra-book has one.

I wonder what the sacrifice is on battery-life for that HP Workstation.
But I hear ya when practically every manufacturer uses the same off the shelf chips/processors.

 

[Nubcake]

Because Apple is waiting for Skylake H chips with Irish Pro Graphics, and those are not released yet.

 

[SSD-GUY]

This redesign should be good. If Apple's competitors are coming up with good designs, the redesigned rMBP will be just as good, if not better.