The next MacBook Pro redesign (merged)

[intz2nu]

The whole touch screen idea for a notebook is definitely not too ideal (to me anyway). Personally I'm not a fan of all these never flip and take apart your screen from your notebook either like those tablets / notebooks. I dunno how and or why those things is becoming some sort of trend among manufacturers making those either.

 

[khaosuser]

Xeon will be a huge bonus too.

How do the mobile Xeon processors compare to i7?

 

[KenAFSPC]

How do the mobile Xeon processors compare to i7?

They're the next step up from the i7 (same or better features with higher clock speeds).

 

[khaosuser]

They're the next step up from the i7 (same or better features with higher clock speeds).

By what magnitude though? Is it marginal or a fairly significant boost?

 

[KenAFSPC]

By what magnitude though? Is it marginal or a fairly significant boost?

See: https://www.macrumors.com/2016/01/27/skylake-macbook-pro-15-chips/

Bottom line, if you want a 2.9GHz or 3.0GHz quad-core mobile CPU, the Xeon is the only game in town. However, it's a very marginal upgrade from the top-of-the-line i7.

 

[j1104638]

By what magnitude though? Is it marginal or a fairly significant boost?

http://ark.intel.com/compare/93341,93340,93336,93358,93359,93354
Base i7 for rMBP - 2.6 GHz base up to 3.5 GHz turbo (2 MB less cache than others below).
Middle i7 - 2.7 GHz base up to 3.6 GHz turbo.
Top i7 and base Xeon - 2.8 GHz base up to 3.7 GHz turbo (base Xeon iGPU is 50 MHz less than top i7).
Middle Xeon - 2.9 GHz base up to 3.8 GHz turbo.
Top Xeon - 3.0 GHz base up to 3.9 GHz turbo (top Xeon iGPU is 50 MHz more than top i7).

I. e. +300-400 MHz from base i7 and +100-200 MHz from best i7.
+ ECC memory support.

 

[Tolien]

The Xeon chipset also supports extra PCIe lanes, which Apple could use to support adding more Thunderbolt/USB ports.

 

[j1104638]

The Xeon chipset also supports extra PCIe lanes, which Apple could use to support adding more Thunderbolt/USB ports.

Why do you think so? Could you provide a source? Both listed i7s and Xeons have 16 PCIe lanes, no more no less.

 

[tresmith]

Looking for a rmbp in the same thin and light design as the new macbook.

with these features....

longer key travel
1080p wide angle eyesight camera
more ports
more power
better battery life
even better speaker system
touchid
cellular chip for dedicated data and calls
spring load sd card slot that goes all the way into the laptop

 

[PFKMan23]

Looking for a rmbp in the same thin and light design as the new macbook.

with these features....

longer key travel
1080p wide angle eyesight camera
more ports
more power
better battery life
even better speaker system
touchid
cellular chip for dedicated data and calls
spring load sd card slot that goes all the way into the laptop

I don't know about wide angle, but the 5MP front camera in the 6S gives me hope.

 

[Tolien]

Why do you think so? Could you provide a source? Both listed i7s and Xeons have 16 PCIe lanes, no more no less.

Note that I said chipset - http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/90583,90584,90593
The CM236 supports 20 lanes, the HM170 only supports 16.

 

[mjs402]

Looking for a rmbp in the same thin and light design as the new macbook.

with these features....

longer key travel
1080p wide angle eyesight camera
more ports
more power
better battery life
even better speaker system
touchid
cellular chip for dedicated data and calls
spring load sd card slot that goes all the way into the laptop

If they could put it in the MacBook chassis, they would have put it in the MacBook chassis. The design of the chassis automatically rules out "more power" as, for now anyway, it is limited to a Core M processor. This thing has no fans on it, and you want more power?

The rMBP or whatever iteration of it is next can be thinner, but not to the 12-inch MacBook size. You need fans for more power (hence Pro), which means they are limited. This isn't to say that they won't redesign the chassis, maybe a new fan mechanism - who knows, but don't get your hopes up too high.

 

[fcomb]

I will like the new macbook keyboard and for my Mac Pro,

The same keyboard bluethoot with LIGHTS please!

 

[LudicrousLampost]

Im only on page 20 of this thread, so have plenty of catching up to do.

Anyway, back on page 20, we can only attempt to speculate as intelligently as possible as to the specs of the next rMBP.

I have a 1.4ghz i5, with 4GB RAM.
The next machine I'll buy will be a rMPB fully specced out.

My only other preference is 'not the biggest one' so, 13 inch perhaps. Will have to wait and see.

My question is, having only owned this mac laptop (air) that I have, how much faster will a fully specced out rMPB feel to me, compared to what I have?

I do a little gaming, photoshop, browsing with lots of tabs open.
Back here at page 20, we have no idea whether the 13 inch will be 13 inch, or indeed dual or quad core. But if anyone can make a very rough but helpful summary of how much better my overall computing experience is likely to be, Id be grateful.

Im not quite sure what the difference between i5 and i7 is in terms of performance, and presuming those are processors, I assume skylake will be, like, i8? I don't know. Which is why Im reading as much as possible to edumakate myself.

 

[sunapple]

I haven't read every single comment on this topic, but here's my idea of Apple's future lineup (based on some vague rumors / my ideas):

I quite like how this turned out.

Pretty simple thinking really; MacBook in 12" and 14" sizes which replace the 11" and 13" models (MBA & MBP), 16" MacBook Pro which replaces the 15" MBP.

The screen sizes sound confusing at first, but in the end you get more screen real estate for every model in a similar sized housing (I modelled the picture above to the "Compare Mac Models" picture from the Apple site with 12, 13 and 15" sizes).

Personally, I really like the 12" MacBook which is why I wanted all models to look like it. Additionally I think the current 13" MBP has to much overlap with the 13" MBA which is why I'd replace it with one 14" MacBook instead.

Now comes the 'future' part; processing power.

Basically, the current 12" MacBook doesn't perform as well as the Airs. So for the future, it should be comparable to 13" MBA - 13" MBP - 15" MBP power wise, ranging from the smallest to biggest screened model as pictured above.

Maybe the Pro gets fans and gets a little thicker, don't know about exact processors. Battery life should be around 9-12 hours. 14" MacBook should have at least two Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) ports, 16" Pro should have all its Pro ports.

Oh, and they all come in Space Grey, Silver, Gold and Rose Gold

 

[alphadog808]

I think the macbook pro is pretty good where it is in terms of thickness though. I dont want it to be thinner. Add more battery life or something. Jeez

 

[TechZeke]

I haven't read every single comment on this topic, but here's my idea of Apple's future lineup (based on some vague rumors / my ideas):

View attachment 616970
I quite like how this turned out.

Pretty simple thinking really; MacBook in 12" and 14" sizes which replace the 11" and 13" models (MBA & MBP), 16" MacBook Pro which replaces the 15" MBP.

The screen sizes sound confusing at first, but in the end you get more screen real estate for every model in a similar sized housing (I modelled the picture above to the "Compare Mac Models" picture from the Apple site with 12, 13 and 15" sizes).

Personally, I really like the 12" MacBook which is why I wanted all models to look like it. Additionally I think the current 13" MBP has to much overlap with the 13" MBA which is why I'd replace it with one 14" MacBook instead.

Now comes the 'future' part; processing power.

Basically, the current 12" MacBook doesn't perform as well as the Airs. So for the future, it should be comparable to 13" MBA - 13" MBP - 15" MBP power wise, ranging from the smallest to biggest screened model as pictured above.

Maybe the Pro gets fans and gets a little thicker, don't know about exact processors. Battery life should be around 9-12 hours. 14" MacBook should have at least two Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) ports, 16" Pro should have all its Pro ports.

Oh, and they all come in Space Grey, Silver, Gold and Rose Gold

Nice theory and concept. Unfortunately There's simply zero chance that concept 16" has a 6970HQ, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD, and a dGPU without throttling and getting 5-7 hours battery life.

 

[Closingracer]

It won't be. Even Dell, HP and others are more and more going to be soldered on (RAM). Apple will use their own interface for the SSDs I guess. It makes no sense to drop it suddenly after a few years of use. Partially I min and partially I don't mind, with 16gb and 256/512gb it will be enough for 99% of the people. Others can always upgrade to the 1tb or get an external drive.

Unless your doing photo editing or video rendering 8gb of ram will be fine for everybody else. Gamers only need 8gb of ram and a good dual core cpu for now. I could argue 4gb is good for most people unless you love having 50 tabs open.

 

[Closingracer]

That doesn't sound "perfect" to me. I actually use an Asus laptop with a 17'' 1080 screen and it's really annoying. I'm not a Mac user, in fact I've never owned one, so it's not like I'm biased or anything.

This new MacBook Pro just might... might... be my first OSX device.

I had a Microsoft surface pro 4 for a day and currently have a msi gaming laptop 17 inch with a 1080p screen. It has a TN panel with decent viewing angles and pretty good color gamut considering its a matte TN panel. Windows 10 itself is fine imo

 

[sunapple]

Nice theory and concept. Unfortunately There's simply zero chance that concept 16" has a 6970HQ, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD, and a dGPU without throttling and getting 5-7 hours battery life.

Like I said; processing power is something the future will bring at some point, but it's probably not going to be 2016. Although the 16" could be thicker than an upscaled 12" MacBook would be of course.
[doublepost=1455774648][/doublepost]

I think the macbook pro is pretty good where it is in terms of thickness though. I dont want it to be thinner. Add more battery life or something. Jeez

I'm basing my ideas on the assumption that the technology will be advanced enough to make the MacBook thinner while keeping performance the same.

And are you sure you don't want thinner and lighter in that case? I mean, I thought the 2011 15" MacBook Pro had perfect dimensions, but now that I'm used to the 15" Retina... It just feels thick, old and heavy. And the Retina was just 0.5kg lighter and 0.5cm thinner.

 

[PKBeam]

It should be possible for Apple to both slim the chassis and get more battery.

 

[tresmith]

If they could put it in the MacBook chassis, they would have put it in the MacBook chassis. The design of the chassis automatically rules out "more power" as, for now anyway, it is limited to a Core M processor. This thing has no fans on it, and you want more power?

The rMBP or whatever iteration of it is next can be thinner, but not to the 12-inch MacBook size. You need fans for more power (hence Pro), which means they are limited. This isn't to say that they won't redesign the chassis, maybe a new fan mechanism - who knows, but don't get your hopes up too high.

That wasn't my point. I want a rMBP in the same design language not the same design. For example, I want a BMW 7 series that looks like the 3 series but i'm asking them to take the V12 engine and put it in the 3 series chasis.

 

[sunapple]

That wasn't my point. I want a rMBP in the same design language not the same design. For example, I want a BMW 7 series that looks like the 3 series but i'm asking them to take the V12 engine and put it in the 3 series chasis.

Something like this?

 

[gadgetfreaky]

this is what I hope for also!

I haven't read every single comment on this topic, but here's my idea of Apple's future lineup (based on some vague rumors / my ideas):

View attachment 616970
I quite like how this turned out.

Pretty simple thinking really; MacBook in 12" and 14" sizes which replace the 11" and 13" models (MBA & MBP), 16" MacBook Pro which replaces the 15" MBP.

The screen sizes sound confusing at first, but in the end you get more screen real estate for every model in a similar sized housing (I modelled the picture above to the "Compare Mac Models" picture from the Apple site with 12, 13 and 15" sizes).

Personally, I really like the 12" MacBook which is why I wanted all models to look like it. Additionally I think the current 13" MBP has to much overlap with the 13" MBA which is why I'd replace it with one 14" MacBook instead.

Now comes the 'future' part; processing power.

Basically, the current 12" MacBook doesn't perform as well as the Airs. So for the future, it should be comparable to 13" MBA - 13" MBP - 15" MBP power wise, ranging from the smallest to biggest screened model as pictured above.

Maybe the Pro gets fans and gets a little thicker, don't know about exact processors. Battery life should be around 9-12 hours. 14" MacBook should have at least two Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) ports, 16" Pro should have all its Pro ports.

Oh, and they all come in Space Grey, Silver, Gold and Rose Gold

 

[Patrick-Photo]

Nice theory and concept. Unfortunately There's simply zero chance that concept 16" has a 6970HQ, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD, and a dGPU without throttling and getting 5-7 hours battery life.

As long as they keep the rear-end beefy enough for cooling they should be fine with just a 6970HQ... A dedicated GPU won't fit in I think, they would need to shrink the Logic-board to compensate for the loss in batteryspace in front where it's tapered.

Unless your doing photo editing or video rendering 8gb of ram will be fine for everybody else. Gamers only need 8gb of ram and a good dual core cpu for now. I could argue 4gb is good for most people unless you love having 50 tabs open.

That's why I'm still rocking my 2011 15" 2.2 i7 with 16GB RAM and a SSD... It's fast enough for me at the moment, the only real complaints are that the screen is lacking and the batterylife is getting poor (around 2-3 hours, around 500 cycles at the moment). They will keep the 8/16 difference between the small and bigger siblings is my guess, the benefits of having 16gb of ram with a dual-core are less big than with a quad-core, depending on your workload.