Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Deanster

macrumors 6502
Jun 6, 2005
287
207
Go there yourself and configure a base thinkpad 15". Its like $850 with the i5-6200u and 1600mhz ram. Select the dropdown for ram and select 32gb, now the price is $1200. Sure its only dual core, but so are most macbooks, sure its got 1600mhz ram but so does the 2015 macbook pro and nobody says that is a "total dog". The thinkpad is not supposed to be a premium laptop! Configure an alienware and you will wreck the macbook pro on every performance metric for significantly less money.

As expected, you didn't even provide a particular model of Thinkpad. Lenovo offers MANY lines. T560? something else?

At least tell us the particular model you're talking about, or you're just blowing wind out your ass.
 

spacebro

Suspended
Oct 1, 2015
552
482
As expected, you didn't even provide a particular model of Thinkpad. Lenovo offers MANY lines. T560? something else?

At least tell us the particular model you're talking about, or you're just blowing wind out your ass.

If you can't figure out that the base 15" thinkpad is the T560, you're just being a troll.
 

MyRumors

macrumors member
Apr 22, 2009
92
27
Sooo the reason Apple stopped at 76 watt-hour is because there is a rule of max 100... ?
Yeeeaaa I'm fairly certain it because of physical space...

With no such ceiling maybe they would have used very different components and created a larger machine.

It's Apple... They care a lot more about light and thin then 32GB RAM than only a very small percentage need.
 
Last edited:

JTK28

macrumors member
Mar 1, 2008
48
26
Yes. I burned a LOT of aircraft seats in my time; once blew up an aircraft (that was not intentional). There is a certain BTU transfer rate that can cause ignition or enough charring to create other issues. That is of course affected by the battery container, or lack thereof.

I'm not saying that's how the number was derived or even if that number is real. I'm saying I can understand that a number probably exists and "know" how it would be derived.

I dont doubt the fact that there is a certain BTU transfer rate that can cause ignition.

My point is that a lot of the rules that our society follows aren't always logical. These kinds of rules and regulations are made to protect the dumbest of the dumb and so these airlines dont get sued.

Its like putting warning labels on bleach. Everyone knows not to drink it but as soon as you sell it without a warning label, some idiot will sue saying, you didn't tell me i shouldn't drink this.
 

spacebro

Suspended
Oct 1, 2015
552
482
Every performance metric? Where can I get one of the SSDs alienware use that can outperform the ones in the new MBPs ?

Sometimes apple users forget this, but you can install any ssd you like into a new alienware and a lot of other pc laptops.
 

koyoot

macrumors 603
Jun 5, 2012
5,939
1,853
For everyone who wants to know the reasons why Apple decided to not adapt the DDR4, and 32 GB of RAM in MBP, I suggest getting knowledge on what is LPDDR and what it differs from DDRXL, and DDRX.

Lets say that DDRX has power consumption of 2, and Standby power consumption of 1.5. DDRXL has Power consumption of 1.5, and Standby power consumption of 1.3 factor.

What are the differences for LPDDRX? Power consumption of 1.2 and Standby power consumption of 0.35.

LPDDR3 have had 89% lower standby power consumption that DDR3L, which was lower power version of desktop RAM - DDR3.

Most of people in this forum again have no idea what they are talking about. Slide 16 in this presentation about DDR3L vs LPDDR3: http://www.memcon.com/pdfs/Keynote_JimElliott.pdf

Low powered states are the reason why we did not have seen DDR4 and 32 GB of RAM in MBP.

And one more thing. Memory does consume a lot of power. Memory cells in GDDR5 Memory of RX 480 8GB 8000 MHz consume 37W of power, alone. Divide it by 4 times and you get roughly the power consumption of DDR4 memory.
 

spacebro

Suspended
Oct 1, 2015
552
482
You miss the point. There is no faster SSD available. Samsung can match it, but not better it.

Soon enough there will be a faster ssd than the one in the new macbook pro. Yesterday's alienware could use it while today's macbook pro is stuck with the same ssd for the next 1-2 years.
 

koyoot

macrumors 603
Jun 5, 2012
5,939
1,853
Soon enough there will be a faster ssd than the one in the new macbook pro. Yesterday's alienware could use it while today's macbook pro is stuck with the same ssd for the next 1-2 years.
There will be very long time before we will see faster SSDs in 4x PCIe environment. 960 Pro and Evo from Samsung are currently the fastest SSD's in the world. And they are only matching the write and read speeds of Macbook Pro SSD's.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.