Waiting for the 2020 MBP

[Falhófnir]

I don't know... having a 13", 15" and 16" MacBook Pro would be like having an 11", 12.9" and 13.5" iPad Pro. There's just not enough difference between the bigger two to justify two different models.

You're not thinking about this in the right way. The 13 and 15" models have been hugely different machines targeting different audiences since inception, just because they share a brand doesn't mean real world equivalence. If it helps, think of the 13" Pro and new 15" Pro as just 'MacBooks' sitting between the real Pro (16") and the low end Air:

16" - 45W 6/8 core CPUs; new 15" - 15/28W 4 core CPUs.
16" - 5300/5500 dGPUs; New 15" - Iris plus integrated graphics.
16" - pricey - $2,399+; New 15" - Cheap ~$1,699+.

They are completely different machines. The new 15" is just a sized up version of the 13" which has always been a far less powerful and cheaper machine and thus has much greater reach than what was the 15", now the 16" model. The 13" is a machine appropriate for anyone from office typists to coffee table browsers to those doing light-moderate video editing. Making this most versatile of machines in a larger size gives Apple maximum market reach for it, while the top end for those wanting maximum power is covered by the new 16".

Lineup at the end of 2020:

Top end: 16" Pro -> for those who need the most power possible in a portable form factor and are willing to pay big for it.

Mid tier: 13" and 15" Pro -> hugely versatile machines with enough power to do photo and video editing but also cheap enough to appeal as office productivity machines.

Entry level: 13" Air -> for those who want a disposably cheap small and light machine to just type up lecture notes or papers and browse the web.

 

[benface]

You're not thinking about this in the right way. The 13 and 15" models have been hugely different machines targeting different audiences since inception, just because they share a brand doesn't mean real world equivalence. If it helps, think of the 13" Pro and new 15" Pro as just 'MacBooks' sitting between the real Pro (16") and the low end Air:

16" - 45W 6/8 core CPUs; new 15" - 15/28W 4 core CPUs.
16" - 5300/5500 dGPUs; New 15" - Iris plus integrated graphics.
16" - pricey - $2,399+; New 15" - Cheap ~$1,699+.

They are completely different machines. The new 15" is just a sized up version of the 13" which has always been a far less powerful and cheaper machine and thus has much greater reach than what was the 15", now the 16" model. The 13" is a machine appropriate for anyone from office typists to coffee table browsers to those doing light-moderate video editing. Making this most versatile of machines in a larger size gives Apple maximum market reach for it, while the top end for those wanting maximum power is covered by the new 16".

Lineup at the end of 2020:

Top end: 16" Pro -> for those who need the most power possible in a portable form factor and are willing to pay big for it.

Mid tier: 13" and 15" Pro -> hugely versatile machines with enough power to do photo and video editing but also cheap enough to appeal as office productivity machines.

Entry level: 13" Air -> for those who want a disposably cheap small and light machine to just type up lecture notes or papers and browse the web.

Wait, what “new 15" Pro”? Did I miss something?

 

[ascender]

While your post makes perfect sense @Falhófnir, I just can't see them introducing a 15" with any sort of Pro label - if they did this I think it would be a 15" Air. I think having anything like that alongside the 13 & 16 will just confuse their lineup after they've spent a while getting it in to a much more cohesive one.

Since they put the quad-core chips in to the 13" MBP, I think that's made more "pro" users consider it rather than having to go for the bulkier 15"/16". Its a pretty capable machine now in a small footprint.

I still think the Air is the default machine for most people and its more than capable of doing normal photo and video editing too. I think its still too expensive though - you describe the 13" Air as being "cheap small and light machine to just type up lecture notes or papers and browse the web." I think that's where Apple are trying to steer people towards the iPad Pro now. Or possible a cheaper, Arm-based ultra-portable?

 

[Falhófnir]

Wait, what “new 15" Pro”? Did I miss something?

As yet, this:

is the only hint of what the 2020 lineup will look like from any sort of reputable source. Notice the 2020 column shows a 15" machine with scissor keyboard as well as the 16". If Kuo comes back with a revised prediction mentioning a 14" pro and dropping the 15" then I will revise my expectations accordingly, but until then IMO this is the baseline of what to expect int the next 12 months - no 14" and the 15" is brought back in some form.

Apple Expected to Adopt Keyboard With Scissor Mechanism for Upcoming 16-inch MacBook Pro

Apple is planning to use a scissor mechanism rather than a butterfly mechanism for its upcoming 16-inch MacBook Pro, Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said...

www.macrumors.com

While your post makes perfect sense @Falhófnir, I just can't see them introducing a 15" with any sort of Pro label - if they did this I think it would be a 15" Air. I think having anything like that alongside the 13 & 16 will just confuse their lineup after they've spent a while getting it in to a much more cohesive one.

Since they put the quad-core chips in to the 13" MBP, I think that's made more "pro" users consider it rather than having to go for the bulkier 15"/16". Its a pretty capable machine now in a small footprint.

I still think the Air is the default machine for most people and its more than capable of doing normal photo and video editing too. I think its still too expensive though - you describe the 13" Air as being "cheap small and light machine to just type up lecture notes or papers and browse the web." I think that's where Apple are trying to steer people towards the iPad Pro now. Or possible a cheaper, Arm-based ultra-portable?

I do agree to a certain degree, though I feel like it's not significantly different from the current situation where the capabilities of the 13 and 16 inch models are worlds apart. The only difference is people are used to equating the 13" size with less power while the 15" will still be thought of as in the same class of machine as the 16" because of its previous position. I think all the marketing and tech reviews of it will make it reasonably clear what it is if it does reappear in this guise, though.

I think there's a good chance the Air will go ARM this year (as above this was Kuo's prediction and I haven't yet heard otherwise) - exactly what that will mean I don't know and would just be speculation at this point. It could be that we'd be in the odd situation of having an Air more powerful than the Pro (or maybe the 15" Pro even returns as the next gen ARM MacBook Pro due to the lower heat output?) or it could be like the Surface Pro X, very much a limited power office type machine (but loses the fan, making more room for battery and the new keyboard?)

It certainly has the potential to be a very interesting year for the Mac so I look forward to seeing how things develop!

 

[ascender]

I did wonder if that 15 & 16 from Kuo was him hedging his bets - there were quite a few stories saying the 16" could be delayed until 2020 at the same time as some places were saying its release was imminent.

Or, its a combination of uncertainty around that and what they're going to do with the 13"? So again, hedging his bets?

I just don't understand why/how they'd keep a 15" MBP in there going forward. But stranger things have happened!

I always thought the 12" MacBook would be the first to go ARM, but now the Air would be the obvious choice. Unless the MacBook gets relaunched as something different - like you say, with it being pitched as something new sitting under/alongside the Air.

 

[Falhófnir]

I did wonder if that 15 & 16 from Kuo was him hedging his bets - there were quite a few stories saying the 16" could be delayed until 2020 at the same time as some places were saying its release was imminent.

Or, its a combination of uncertainty around that and what they're going to do with the 13"? So again, hedging his bets?

I just don't understand why/how they'd keep a 15" MBP in there going forward. But stranger things have happened!

I always thought the 12" MacBook would be the first to go ARM, but now the Air would be the obvious choice. Unless the MacBook gets relaunched as something different - like you say, with it being pitched as something new sitting under/alongside the Air.

Indeed, it could certainly be that the supply chain info was unclear, or he got his wires crossed, or was just plain mistaken - while I think it's fair to say he's right more than he's wrong, he certainly isn't infallible. I think trying to read the tea leaves on that gets us back into pure speculation territory, though, so I'd prefer to wait until he either comes back with a revised prediction for the year, or else we start seeing new macs appearing (March time?) to start giving us a hint of what Apple plans for the Mac lineup this year.

I did find it interesting that Phil Schiller specifically dampened talk of the 14" in the interview he gave though, I think his words were something to the effect of 'don't try to extrapolate [what we've done with the 16" to other product lines]' - which seems quite a specific denial over and above the general assumption he's not going to talk about future unreleased products. That's what I was talking about back in post #2,122 about exactly what the benefit of a 14" Pro would be over retaining the 13.3" form factor - I feel like they've made very specific changes to the 16" reflecting specific problems the 15" had, and most of which the 13" machine doesn't share. Either way, guess not too long to wait until we begin to get some sort of picture about where they're heading!

 

[ascender]

That's the thing, they may not be able to put any of the new features from the 16 in to the 13 due to space or technical restrictions. The speakers are a good example where they might scale them down and there's no real improvements over the current ones. Same with the thermals. And both of those are arguably less important to your average 13" buyer.

I still think the move to a scissor keyboard will see it getting the same layout with the physical escape key and separate power/touchid button. But I also think if they have to modify the case to take the new layout& keyboard, they might just go to a 14" screen at the same time.

Hopefully we'll get some tangible information soon, I agree, could be a very exciting year for Macs.

 

[koyoot]

CES 2020: Lenovo Yoga Slim 7, with AMD 4000 APU inside, Coming March

www.anandtech.com

14 hour battery life. https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-introduces-renoir-dali-ryzen-4000-series-mobile-processors

Here is a list of all of APU SKUs. Enjoy complaining AMD cannot compete with Intel in mobile(kek).

 

[simonmet]

CES 2020: Lenovo Yoga Slim 7, with AMD 4000 APU inside, Coming March

www.anandtech.com

14 hour battery life. https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-introduces-renoir-dali-ryzen-4000-series-mobile-processors

Here is a list of all of APU SKUs. Enjoy complaining AMD cannot compete with Intel in mobile(kek).

Those charts are comparing the AMD 8-core 4800H with a 6-core i7 9750H. Why would they do that and not compare it with an 8-core like the i9-9980HK? To make them look more impressive and build hype while hoping some people don’t notice?

 

[clangers23]

Those AMD charts are comparing the AMD 8-core 4800H with a 6-core i7 9750H. Why would they do that and not compare it with an 8-core i9 like the 9980HK? To make them look more impressive and build hype while hoping some people don’t notice I’m guessing.

They're obviously not quite as powerful but I bet they'll be a fair bit more energy efficient on 7nm. I know that the two fabrication processes defined by Intel and AMD are not an exact like for like but even so I'd be very interested in a 14" MBP with an 8 core 16 thread CPU with Vega 8 graphics.

This really the first generation of Ryzen mobile CPU's to fully take on Intel mobile and if it goes the way of the desktop CPU's we'll be in for a fun time as consumers.

 

[imMango]

Those AMD charts are comparing the AMD 8-core 4800H with a 6-core i7 9750H. Why would they do that and not compare it with an 8-core i9 like the 9980HK? To make them look more impressive and build hype while hoping some people don’t notice I’m guessing.

Most likely because they are competing at the same price point as Intel’s mobile 6-core.

 

[leman]

Here is a list of all of APU SKUs. Enjoy complaining AMD cannot compete with Intel in mobile(kek).

The 45W AMD SKUs don't come close to the high-end 45W Intel parts - the clocks are just not competitive. The 15W part looks very attractive, but there is little stopping Intel from down-clocking their 8-core chips to 15W TDP...

 

[Ma2k5]

Most likely because they are competing at the same price point as Intel’s mobile 6-core.

But that would be like Dell comparing an XPS 15 priced to a MBP 13 (which is doable), so pretty deceiving.

 

[koyoot]

Those charts are comparing the AMD 8-core 4800H with a 6-core i7 9750H. Why would they do that and not compare it with an 8-core like the i9-9980HK? To make them look more impressive and build hype while hoping some people don’t notice?

Because 4800H is cheaper than 9750H, and will land in more price competitive laptops?

The 45W AMD SKUs don't come close to the high-end 45W Intel parts - the clocks are just not competitive. The 15W part looks very attractive, but there is little stopping Intel from down-clocking their 8-core chips to 15W TDP...

AMD rates TDP differently than Intel. While Intel specs TDP for BASE clock, AMD rates TDP for BOOST clocks.

Which means that AMD CPus will not break the specs, and those Turbo clocks will actually be achievable in power constrained situations, while also possibly keeping lower power draw.

 

[wallysb01]

Because 4800H is cheaper than 9750H, and will land in more price competitive laptops?

Do we see pricing anywhere yet though?

AMD rates TDP differently than Intel. While Intel specs TDP for BASE clock, AMD rates TDP for BOOST clocks.

Which means that AMD CPus will not break the specs, and those Turbo clocks will actually be achievable in power constrained situations, while also possibly keeping lower power draw.

In one of their slides they are showing their 4800U besting the 1065G7 by 90% in a Cinebench multithreaded task. I have a hard time believing they are doing that in 15W, while the 1065G7 might be drawing more than that and the 1065G7 is on Intels 10nm already. If it really is that much better on perf/power, great. This thing will crush intel, but that's such a big gap I have to believe the books are cooked in someway.

 

[koyoot]

Do we see pricing anywhere yet though?



In one of their slides they are showing their 4800U besting the 1065G7 by 90% in a Cinebench multithreaded task. I have a hard time believing they are doing that in 15W, while the 1065G7 might be drawing more than that and the 1065G7 is on Intels 10nm already. If it really is that much better on perf/power, great. This thing will crush intel, but that's such a big gap I have to believe the books are cooked in someway.

Everything about the tests is in the footnotes. 1065G7 was with 25W cTDP set, If I remember correctly, but don't quote me on this.

P.S. Why is it so hard to believe 7 nm product, that was optimized for effciency, completely runs circles around a product that uses inefficient 14 nm process? Is it because the perception AMD has?

 

[Ma2k5]

Everything about the tests is in the footnotes. 1065G7 was with 25W cTDP set, If I remember correctly, but don't quote me on this.

P.S. Why is it so hard to believe 7 nm product, that was optimized for effciency, completely runs circles around a product that uses inefficient 14 nm process? Is it because the perception AMD has?

It is actually 10nm vs 7nm, - and the reason it beats it is because we are comparing 4 core to 8 core so such a multi-core result is obvious.

None the less, looks like an exciting APU.

 

[leman]

AMD rates TDP differently than Intel. While Intel specs TDP for BASE clock, AMD rates TDP for BOOST clocks.

So, I've now read a bit more on the topic and it is really a mess. My conclusion is basically that TDP values are completely incomparable between AMD and Intel. AMD uses a very weird formula — and no, you cannot expect the CPU to run at full boost clock at 15 watts. We need to look at actual benchmarks once these come out. The Zen 2 won't be able to run 8 cores at 4 Ghz within the 15W limit when Intel only manages 3.2 Gz within a 60W limit. Zen 2 is not two-three times more power efficient than optimized Skylake — if that was the case, Intel would already be out of business.

P.S. Why is it so hard to believe 7 nm product, that was optimized for effciency, completely runs circles around a product that uses inefficient 14 nm process? Is it because the perception AMD has?

Because we already saw the benchmarks for Zen 2 and because it is not as superior as the AMD marketing material claims. Zen is an amazing CPU core, and it is a great in both perf-per-watt and perf-per-dollar, but it excels in mid-rage sector, not the high-end one. AMD still lacks in absolute single-threaded performance and IPC.

At any rate, these CPUs look like an excellent choice for the 13" MBP.

In one of their slides they are showing their 4800U besting the 1065G7 by 90% in a Cinebench multithreaded task

Well, its a 8 core CPU vs. 4 core. I don't think it is unrealistic. It is more power-efficient to run more cores at lower clocks than less cores on higher clocks. Thats how a 45watt 8-core i9 can outperform a 6-45W core i7 in the same chassis after all. I would still take AMD claimed advantage with a grain of salt — I want to see independent benchmarks.

 

[koyoot]

So, I've now read a bit more on the topic and it is really a mess. My conclusion is basically that TDP values are completely incomparable between AMD and Intel. AMD uses a very weird formula — and no, you cannot expect the CPU to run at full boost clock at 15 watts. We need to look at actual benchmarks once these come out. The Zen 2 won't be able to run 8 cores at 4 Ghz within the 15W limit when Intel only manages 3.2 Gz within a 60W limit. Zen 2 is not two-three times more power efficient than optimized Skylake — if that was the case, Intel would already be out of business.

Maximum boost clocks are always for single threads. I am genuinely curious how high the clocks go in 15W power envelope for those APUs. I do believe we might see them bounce around 3 GHz all core Turbo, considering the clock speeds of 45W APUs.

 

[wallysb01]

So, I've now read a bit more on the topic and it is really a mess. My conclusion is basically that TDP values are completely incomparable between AMD and Intel. AMD uses a very weird formula — and no, you cannot expect the CPU to run at full boost clock at 15 watts. We need to look at actual benchmarks once these come out. The Zen 2 won't be able to run 8 cores at 4 Ghz within the 15W limit when Intel only manages 3.2 Gz within a 60W limit. Zen 2 is not two-three times more power efficient than optimized Skylake — if that was the case, Intel would already be out of business.


Well, its a 8 core CPU vs. 4 core. I don't think it is unrealistic. It is more power-efficient to run more cores at lower clocks than less cores on higher clocks. Thats how a 45watt 8-core i9 can outperform a 6-45W core i7 in the same chassis after all. I would still take AMD claimed advantage with a grain of salt — I want to see independent benchmarks.

Right, fully aware 8 cores at slower clocks > 4 cores at higher clocks in terms of performance in a given power envelope for sure. But it's the scale that got me, which is nearly perfect linear scaling with cores, as Intel v AMD on the single thread Cinebench test is within 4%, so what ever thermal down clocking doing to fit 4 threads in, AMD is basically doing that same thing per core, but gets 8 cores.... That's how I'm skeptical of the math here. And those tests were done on the "AMD reference system" versus the Dell XPS 7390. So I don't what to make of that. But my guess is that the "AMD reference system" just has more thermal headroom. Ultimately, like you say above, we need to see the power numbers. Apparently the Acer Swift 3 will soon be available with either option, so hopefully we won't have to wait long to see of better and more complete head-to-head comparisons.

 

[koyoot]

AMD reference systems are just OEM laptops, engineering machines.

How do you think AMD tests their CPUs, and were able to have already so many designs, ready to showcase, with their partners during the CES?

That Reference System was one of the announced laptops during the CES, with those APUs.

 

[Ma2k5]

So, I've now read a bit more on the topic and it is really a mess. My conclusion is basically that TDP values are completely incomparable between AMD and Intel. AMD uses a very weird formula — and no, you cannot expect the CPU to run at full boost clock at 15 watts. We need to look at actual benchmarks once these come out. The Zen 2 won't be able to run 8 cores at 4 Ghz within the 15W limit when Intel only manages 3.2 Gz within a 60W limit. Zen 2 is not two-three times more power efficient than optimized Skylake — if that was the case, Intel would already be out of business.



Because we already saw the benchmarks for Zen 2 and because it is not as superior as the AMD marketing material claims. Zen is an amazing CPU core, and it is a great in both perf-per-watt and perf-per-dollar, but it excels in mid-rage sector, not the high-end one. AMD still lacks in absolute single-threaded performance and IPC.

At any rate, these CPUs look like an excellent choice for the 13" MBP.



Well, its a 8 core CPU vs. 4 core. I don't think it is unrealistic. It is more power-efficient to run more cores at lower clocks than less cores on higher clocks. Thats how a 45watt 8-core i9 can outperform a 6-45W core i7 in the same chassis after all. I would still take AMD claimed advantage with a grain of salt — I want to see independent benchmarks.

Good post.

I wonder also if some of the optimisations that AMD lacked for certain work flows (MATLAB springs to mind but there are other computation/data workflows) have been resolved or worked on (even if it means working with the software vendors).

 

[wallysb01]

AMD reference systems are just OEM laptops, engineering machines.

How do you think AMD tests their CPUs, and were able to have already so many designs, ready to showcase, with their partners during the CES?

That Reference System was one of the announced laptops during the CES, with those APUs.

Sure, I figured it’s a laptop, but is it the same laptop design? And even if so, are there any other differences that might change things?

 

[PeterJP]

If you look at how much further the screen extends into the corners on the 16" vs the 15.6" and try to do the same on the 13", you don't gain much at all in screen real estate. Only bragging rights ("Hey, we have narrow bezels!"). So I don't believe in a 14" rumour because I can't see Apple making the 13" bigger again. A bit less thin to accommodate the scissor keyboard, with the extra space gained going to battery, perhaps, and maybe a 32GB option (yes, please).

As for an ARM Air, I don't think so, either. The Air just had a redesign. They're not going to take a brand new redesign and re-redesign it after 1 machine. If anything, it feels more likely to me that they'll pick up the Macbook ultraportable and turn that into the first ARM Mac.

Looking forward to the scissor keyboard 13, though... my late 2013 is finally becoming slow for day-to-day tasks.

 

[koyoot]

Sure, I figured it’s a laptop, but is it the same laptop design? And even if so, are there any other differences that might change things?

If I would be betting which one Laptop was the reference Design - I would say its Asus's Zenbook 14.